Re: [PATCH v4 06/16] pwm: lpss: Correct get_state result for base_unit == 0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 7/9/20 4:50 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:14:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
The datasheet specifies that programming the base_unit part of the
ctrl register to 0 results in a contineous low signal.

Adjust the get_state method to reflect this by setting pwm_state.period
to 1 and duty_cycle to 0.

...

+	if (freq == 0) {
+		/* In this case the PWM outputs a continous low signal */

+		state->period = 1;

I guess this should be something like half of the range (so base unit calc
will give 128). Because with period = 1 (too small) it will give too small
base unit (if apply) and as a result we get high frequency pulses.

You are right, that if after this the user only changes the duty-cycle
things will work very poorly, we will end up with a base_unit value of
e.g 65535 and then have almost no duty-cycle resolution at all.

How about using a value here which results in a base_unit value of
256 (for 16 bit base-unit registers), that is the highest frequency we
can do while still having full duty-cycle resolution and it also
is the power-on-reset value, so using a higher period which translates
to a base_unit value of 256 (the por calue) seems like a sensible thing to do.

Uwe what do you think about this?

Regards,

Hans




+		state->duty_cycle = 0;
+	} else {
  		state->period = NSEC_PER_SEC / (unsigned long)freq;
+		on_time_div *= state->period;
+		do_div(on_time_div, 255);
+		state->duty_cycle = on_time_div;
+	}





[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux