Hi Uwe, Hi Lee,
Am 2020-08-06 10:40, schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:35:52AM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
index 7dbcf6973d33..a0d50d70c3b9 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
@@ -428,6 +428,16 @@ config PWM_SIFIVE
To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
will be called pwm-sifive.
+config PWM_SL28CPLD
+ tristate "Kontron sl28cpld PWM support"
+ select MFD_SIMPLE_MFD_I2C
Is it sensible to present this option to everyone? Maybe
depends on SOME_SYMBOL_ONLY_TRUE_ON_SL28CPLD || COMPILE_TEST
Because there is now no real MFD driver anymore, there is also
no symbol for that. The closest would be ARCH_ARM64 but I don't
think that is a good idea.
Lee, what do you think about adding a symbol to the MFD, which
selects MFD_SIMPLE_MFD_I2C but doesn't enable any C modules?
I.e.
config MFD_SL28CPLD
tristate "Kontron sl28cpld"
select MFD_SIMPLE_MFD_I2C
help
Say yes here to add support for the Kontron sl28cpld board
management controller.
Then all the other device driver could depend on the MFD_SL28CPLD
symbol.
[..]
+static void sl28cpld_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+ struct pwm_device *pwm,
+ struct pwm_state *state)
+{
+ struct sl28cpld_pwm *priv = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
+ unsigned int reg;
+ int prescaler;
+
+ sl28cpld_pwm_read(priv, SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL, ®);
+
+ state->enabled = reg & SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_ENABLE;
+
+ prescaler = FIELD_GET(SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK, reg);
+ state->period = SL28CPLD_PWM_PERIOD(prescaler);
+
+ sl28cpld_pwm_read(priv, SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE, ®);
+ state->duty_cycle = SL28CPLD_PWM_TO_DUTY_CYCLE(reg);
Should reg be masked to SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE_MAX, or is it guaranteed
that
the upper bits are zero?
Mh, the hardware guarantees that bit7 is zero. So masking with
SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE_MAX won't buy us much. But what I could think
could go wrong is this: someone set the prescaler to != 0 and the
duty cycle to a value greater than the max value for this particular
prescaler mode. For the above calculations this would result in a
duty_cycle greater than the period, if I'm not mistaken.
The behavior of the hardware is undefined in that case (at the moment
it will be always on, I guess). So this isn't a valid setting.
Nevertheless it might happen. So what about the following:
state->duty_cycle = min(state->duty_cycle, state->period);
-michael
