Hello Jeff, On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 03:28:01AM +0000, Jeff LaBundy wrote: > I heard back from the vendor today; they've acknowledged the limitation and > are considering adding support for 0% in a future ROM spin. In the meantime, > they've agreed to describe the high-impedance behavior in the data sheet as > well as include the pull-down resistor in an example schematic. Oh wow, seems like a good vendor then. :-) > > > Option (3) seems like overkill for such a simple PWM, and ultimately doesn't > > > add any value because I don't want to allow option (1) behavior in any case. > > > Whether the PWM is disabled because it is truly disabled or to simulate a 0% > > > duty cycle as in option (2), the pull-down is ultimately required regardless > > > of whether or not the data sheet happens to go into such detail. > > > > Actually I like option 3 best. > > > > Based on your other feedback, I'm moving forward under the impression that > you'll still accept option (2); please let me know if I have misunderstood > (thank you for being flexible). Yeah, that's fine. If in the end it shows that this is a bad idea we can still change to (3). Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
