Hello,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 09:47:00AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> > From: Uwe Kleine-Konig, Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 6:14 PM
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 05:29:33PM +0900, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> > > +static void rcar_pwm_workaround_output_low(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * This PWM Timer cannot output low because setting 0x000 is
> > > + * prohibited on PWMCNT.PH0 (High-Level Period) bitfields. So, avoiding
> > > + * the prohibited, this function changes the value from 0 to 1 as
> > > + * pseudo low level.
> > > + *
> > > + * TODO: Add GPIO handling to output low level.
> > > + */
> > > + if ((rp->pwmcnt & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK) == 0)
> > > + rp->pwmcnt |= 1;
> >
> > In my eyes this is too broken to do. Not sure I have the complete
> > picture, but given a small period (say 2) this 1 cycle might result in
> > 50 % duty cycle. Depending on how the hardware behaves if you disable
> > it, better do this instead.
>
> My colleague suggests that this workaround code also changes the period
> as maximum (1023) to avoid 50 % duty cycle for such a case.
A negative side effect of that is that reenabling the pwm then takes
longer, right? For my mileage even a duty cycle of 1/1023 if 0 is
requested is rather unfortunate.
> What do you think that this idea is acceptable for upstream? Or, should
> I add gpio handling that Uwe suggested?
Given that it's impossible to implement a gpio handling that results in
well defined periods only I'm not a big fan of that either.
I let Thierry the joy of deciding here.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
