Hi Uwe,
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 18:55, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Baolin,
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 06:01:50PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 17:23, Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 04:42:28PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 23:16, Uwe Kleine-König
> > > > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:46:41PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > Not really, our hardware's method is, when you changed a new
> > > > configuration (MOD or duty is changed) , the hardware will wait for a
> > > > while to complete current period, then change to the new period.
> > >
> > > Can you describe that in more detail? This doesn't explain why MOD must be
> > > configured before DUTY. Is there another reason for that?
> >
> > Sorry, I did not explain this explicitly. When we change a new PWM
> > configuration, the PWM controller will make sure the current period is
> > completed before changing to a new period. Once setting the MOD
> > register (since we always set MOD firstly), that will tell the
> > hardware that a new period need to change.
>
> So if the current period just ended after you reconfigured MOD but
> before you wrote to DUTY we'll see a bogus period, right? I assume the
> same holds true for writing the prescale value?
I confirmed again, I am sorry I missed something before. Yes, like you
said before, writing DUTY triggers the hardware to actually apply the
values written to MOD and DUTY to the output. So write DUTY last. I
will update the comments and change the PWM configure like:
sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_PRESCALE, prescale);
sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_MOD, SPRD_PWM_MOD_MAX);
sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_DUTY, duty);
>
> > The reason MOD must be configured before DUTY is that, if we
> > configured DUTY firstly, the PWM can work abnormally if the current
> > DUTY is larger than previous MOD. That is also our hardware's
> > limitation.
>
> OK, so you must not get into a situation where DUTY > MOD, right?
>
> Now if the hardware was configured for
>
> period = 8s, duty = 4s
>
> and now you are supposed to change to
>
> period = 2s, duty = 1s
>
> you'd need to write DUTY first, don't you?
>
> > > > > > +static int sprd_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chip *spc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > > > + int ret, i;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + ret = pwmchip_remove(&spc->chip);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < spc->num_pwms; i++) {
> > > > > > + struct sprd_pwm_chn *chn = &spc->chn[i];
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(SPRD_PWM_NUM_CLKS, chn->clks);
> > > > >
> > > > > If a PWM was still running you're effectively stopping it here, right?
> > > > > Are you sure you don't disable once more than you enabled?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are right. I should check current enable status of the PWM channel.
> > > > Thanks for your comments.
> > >
> > > I didn't recheck, but I think the right approach is to not fiddle with
> > > the clocks at all and rely on the PWM framework to not let someone call
> > > sprd_pwm_remove when a PWM is still in use.
> >
> > So you mean just return pwmchip_remove(&spc->chip); ?
>
> right.
>
> I just rechecked: If there is still a pwm in use, pwmchip_remove returns
> -EBUSY. So this should be safe.
Yes. Thanks for your comments.
--
Baolin Wang
Best Regards
