Hi Enric
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:00:02PM +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 8/6/19 23:02, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >>> + * Note that this method is based on empirical testing on different
> >>> + * devices with PWM of 8 and 16 bits of resolution.
> >>> + */
> >>> + n = period;
> >>> + while (n) {
> >>> + counter += n % 2;
> >>> + n >>= 1;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> I don't quite follow the heuristics above. Are you sure the number of
> >> PWM bits can be infered from the period? What if the period value (in
> >> ns) doesn't directly correspond to a register value? And even if it
> >> did, counting the number of set bits (the above loops is a
> >> re-implementation of ffs()) doesn't really result in the dividers
> >> mentioned in the comment. E.g. a period of 32768 ns (0x8000) results
> >> in a divider of 1, i.e. 32768 brighness levels.
> >>
>
> Right, I think that only works on the cases that we only have one pwm cell, and
> looks like during my tests I did only tests on devices with one pwm cell :-(
>
> And as you point the code is broken for other cases (pwm-cells > 1)
>
> >> On veyron minnie the period is 1000000 ns, which results in 142858
> >> levels (1000000 / 7)!
> >>
> >> Not sure if there is a clean solution using heuristics, a DT property
> >> specifying the number of levels could be an alternative. This could
> >> also be useful to limit the number of (mostly) redundant levels, even
> >> the intended max of 4096 seems pretty high.
> >>
>
> Looking again looks like we _can not_ deduce the number of bits of a pwm, it is
> not exposed at all, so I think we will need to end adding a property to specify
> this. Something similar to what leds-pwm binding does, it has:
>
> max-brightness : Maximum brightness possible for the LED
Thanks for the confirmation that I didn't just miss some clever trick.
I also think that some kind of DT property is needed, I'll try to come
up with a reasonable name, keeping in mind that some devices might not
want to use the entire range of levels.
