Hello Hans, On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:31:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 7/7/20 9:34 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > But if we do then I think closest to the truth would be: > > > > > > state->period = UINT_MAX; > > > state->duty_cycle = 0; > > > > I'd say state->period = 1 & state->duty_cycle = 0 is a better > > representation. > > But that would suggest the output is configured for an > infinitely high output frequency, but the frequency is > actually 0, the reason why get_state needs to treat a > base_unit val of 0 special at all is to avoid a division > by 0, and in math dividing by 0 gives infinite, isn't > UINT_MAX a better way to represent infinity ? Given that duty_cycle is 0, how can to tell anything about the period when only seeing the signal (= a constant low)? Given that (ideally) a period is completed when pwm_apply_state() is called, a short period is much more sensible. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
