On 03/30/2015 04:07 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Guenter,
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:33:41 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On chips with newer pwm control, the pwm frequency divider is 256
instead of 128. Since the base pwm frequency remained the same, the actual
pwm frequency is half of what it used to be with the older pwm control
mechanism.
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/hwmon/it87.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
index ab12dc2eb896..7ab5bd026e91 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/it87.c
@@ -502,15 +502,25 @@ static int DIV_TO_REG(int val)
}
#define DIV_FROM_REG(val) (1 << (val))
+/*
+ * pwm base frequencies. The frequency has to be divided by either 128 or 256,
+ * depending on the chip type, to calculate the actual pwm frequency.
+ *
+ * Some of the chip datasheets suggest a base frequency of 51kHz instead
+ * of 750kHz for the slowest base frequency, resulting in a pwm frequency
+ * of 200Hz. Sometimes both pwm frequency select registers are affected,
+ * sometimes just one. It is unknown if this is a datasheet error or real,
+ * so this is ignored for now.
Leaving a space between the number and kHz or Hz makes it easier to
read IMHO. I would also capitalize PWM everywhere.
Other than these minor suggestions, this looks good, good catch! I never
noticed this difference between the various chips.
Hi Jean,
I made those changes. Should I resubmit, or do I have your Reviewed-by: ?
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
