On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 09:52:15PM +0100, Dimitri Fedrau wrote:
> Hello Uwe,
>
> Am Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 09:19:36PM +0100 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> > Hello Dimitri,
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 08:07:09PM +0100, Dimitri Fedrau wrote:
> > > Am Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 11:19:16PM +0200 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> > > > What breaks if you drop the check for state->enabled?
> > > >
> > > The device is unable to generate a 0% duty cycle, to support this you
> > > proposed in an earlier review to disable the output. Without checking if
> > > the output is disabled, the mc33xs2410_pwm_get_state function returns the
> > > wrong duty cycle for a previously setted 0% duty cycle. A "0" value in the
> > > MC33XS2410_PWM_DC register means that the relative duty cylce is 1/256. As
> > > a result there are complaints if PWM_DEBUG is enabled.
> >
> > I fail to follow. If .enabled=true + .duty_cycle=0 is requested you
> > disable. That's fine. However it shouldn't be necessary to use
> > state->enabled in .get_state(). I didn't look at the actual code, but if
> > you provide a sequence of writes to /sys that trigger a PWM_DEBUG
> > output, I'll take another look.
> >
> Apply 0% duty cycle: .enabled=false + .duty_cycle=0
> Below some writes triggering PWM_DEBUG output:
>
> # echo 488282 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip3/pwm0/period
> # echo 244140 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip3/pwm0/duty_cycle
> # echo 0 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip3/pwm0/duty_cycle
> [ 91.813513] mc33xs2410-pwm spi0.0: .apply is supposed to round down duty_cycle (requested: 0/488282, applied: 1908/488282)
I don't understand that. We're talking about
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mc33xs2410.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mc33xs2410.c
index f9a334a5e69b..14f5f7312d0a 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mc33xs2410.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mc33xs2410.c
@@ -244,15 +244,6 @@ static int mc33xs2410_pwm_get_relative_duty_cycle(u64 period, u64 duty_cycle)
return duty_cycle - 1;
}
-static void mc33xs2410_pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(struct pwm_state *state,
- u16 duty_cycle)
-{
- if (!state->enabled)
- state->duty_cycle = 0;
- else
- state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((duty_cycle + 1) * state->period, 256);
-}
-
static int mc33xs2410_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
const struct pwm_state *state)
{
@@ -325,7 +316,7 @@ static int mc33xs2410_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
state->polarity = (val[2] & MC33XS2410_PWM_CTRL1_POL_INV(pwm->hwpwm)) ?
PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
state->enabled = !!(val[3] & MC33XS2410_PWM_CTRL3_EN(pwm->hwpwm));
- mc33xs2410_pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(state, val[1]);
+ state->duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL((duty_cycle + 1) * state->period, 256);
return 0;
}
on top of your patch, right?
`echo 0 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip3/pwm0/duty_cycle` should result in
MC33XS2410_PWM_CTRL3 having MC33XS2410_PWM_CTRL3_EN(pwm->hwpwm) cleared.
When mc33xs2410_pwm_get_state() is called then it returns state->enabled
= false and in that case the above mentioned warning doesn't trigger.
Where is the misunderstanding?
Best regards
Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
