Hi, On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:28 AM Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Also it should be possible to know the result before actually > > > configuring the hardware. Otherwise things might already go wrong > > > because the driver implements a setting that is too far from the > > > requested configuration. > > > > Later in this thread Thierry didn't like the "round rate" idea due to > > races. One way to solve that could be to indicate to the PWM > > framework which direction you'd like it to error in: a higher duty > > cycle or a lower one. > > I don't think this would result in settings as optimal as with my > suggestion. If you don't agree and want to convince me: Show how your > suggestion would work with a PWM that can implement only multiples of 3 > for duty_cycle and period and you want 20% duty cycle with period <= 1 > ms (without making use of the knowledge about the limitation of the > PWM in the algorithm). I guess I was assuming that somehow this would percolate down into an API call that the PWM driver would implement, so you could make use of the PWM knowledge in the algorithm. ...but I don't have any real strong feelings about this API so I'll leave it to you and Thierry to hash out what makes you both happy. -Doug _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
