Hello, On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 03:30:16PM +0800, Tanwar, Rahul wrote: > On 27/7/2020 3:01 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > In v4 you had: > > > > if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL || > > state->period < pc->period) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > That's the right thing to do (even though I was unsettled at one point > > and wrote it was wrong). The check in v5 with state->period != > > pc->period is wrong. > > Does that mean we should allow state->period >= pc->period cases? Yes, the driver is supposed to implement the longest period not longer than the requested one. This implies everything >= pc->period is fine. > If the state->period is greater than HW supported pc->period and > if we allow it then the duty cycle will again be evaluated to be > incorrect/higher than requested duty cycle. Am i missing something > else? Thanks. Yes, similar as with period you're supposed to implement the longest duty cycle your hardware supports and that is not longer than the requested duty cycle. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
