Hello,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:53:22PM +0000, Sandipan Patra wrote:
> > To put my expression in words: pick the maximum of the possible periods that
> > are less or equal to the requested value. Maybe this is better
> > understandable:
> >
> > max { x ∊ implementablePeriods | x <= requestedPeriod }
> >
> > ?
>
> I think I got your question.
> Should tegra_pwm_config() not return error (EINVAL) when the requested period is
> invalid but it should configure to a nearest possible value?
If you cannot configure according to the above rule, yes, return an
error code. EINVAL is the usual one I think (some also return ERANGE).
> > > Yes, the output stops as soon as the PWM_ENABLE bit is cleared in
> > > hardware. Then The output is set to 0 (which is inactive).
> > > Once .disable() => tegra_pwm_disable() gets invoked, enable bit is
> > > cleared and hence PWM will possess no output signal.
> > > tegra_pwm_config() will be invoked for any new configuration request.
> >
> > Some drivers already have a "Limitations" section in their header.
> > Please take a look at the existing examples and provide something similar. (Note
> > you still didn't answer "How does a running PWM behave when the register is
> > updated? Does it complete the currently running period?". I assume the answer
> > to the second question is "No" (and the first is only there for rhetoric reasons).)
> >
>
> 1. I will add the below comments as Limitations:
> - When PWM is disabled, the output is driven to 0 and
In fact, this is a good property. So the only problem is, that for both
stop and reconfiguration the currently running period isn't completed.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
