On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:52:21AM +0000, Billy Tsai wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
>
> On 2021/7/16, 6:13 PM, "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 09:22:22AM +0000, Billy Tsai wrote:
> >> On 2021/7/16, 3:10 PM, "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 01:48:20AM +0000, Billy Tsai wrote:
> >> >> On 2021/7/15, 11:06 PM, "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >> >> > Another is: The PWM doesn't support duty_cycle 0, on such a request the
> >> >> > PWM is disabled which results in a constant inactive level.
> >> >>
> >> >> > (This is correct, is it? Or does it yield a constant 0 level?)
> >> >>
> >> >> Our pwm can support duty_cycle 0 by unset CLK_ENABLE.
> >>
> >> > This has a slightly different semantic though. Some consumer might
> >> > expect that the following sequence:
> >>
> >> > pwm_apply(mypwm, { .period = 10000, .duty_cycle = 10000, .enabled = true })
> >> > pwm_apply(mypwm, { .period = 10000, .duty_cycle = 0, .enabled = true })
> >> > pwm_apply(mypwm, { .period = 10000, .duty_cycle = 10000, .enabled = true })
> >>
> >> > results in the output being low for an integer multiple of 10 µs. This
> >> > isn't given with setting CLK_ENABLE to zero, is it? (I didn't recheck,
> >> > if the PWM doesn't complete periods on reconfiguration this doesn't
> >> > matter much though.)
> >> Thanks for the explanation.
> >> Our hardware actually can only support duty from 1/256 to 256/256.
> >> For this situation I can do possible solution:
> >> We can though change polarity to meet this requirement. Inverse the pin and use
> >> duty_cycle 100.
> >> But I think this is not a good solution for this problem right?
>
> > If this doesn't result in more glitches that would be fine for me.
> > (Assuming it is documented good enough in the code to be
> > understandable.)
>
> > The polarity of our pwm controller will affect the duty cycle range:
> > PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED : Support duty_cycle from 0% to 99%
> > PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL: Support duty_cycle from 1% to 100%
> > Dynamic change polarity will result in more glitches. Thus, this will become
> > a trade-off between 100% and 0% duty_cycle support for user to use our pwm device.
> > I will document it and send next patch.
>
> For handling the situation that the user want to set the duty cycle to 0%, the driver can:
> 1. Just return the error.
> 2. Use the minimum duty cycle value.
> I don't know which solution will be the better way or others.
> I would be grateful if you can give me some suggestion about this problem.
I thought if you disable the PWM it emits the inactive level? Then this
is the best you can do if duty_cycle = 0 is requested.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
