lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/2] pwm: sifive: Add a driver for SiFive SoC PWM
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 01:37:03PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 11:16:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:13:19PM +0530, Yash Shah wrote:
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> [...]
> > > + writel(val, pwm->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG);
> > > +
> > > + writel(frac, pwm->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCMP0 + dev->hwpwm * SIZE_PWMCMP);
> > > +
> > > + val &= ~(1 << PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG_DEGLITCH);
> > > + writel(val, pwm->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCFG);
> > > +
> > > + pwm_sifive_get_state(chip, dev, state);
> >
> > Thierry: This changes the pwm_state. Is this how this should be done?
>
> Yes, I think that's fine. The PWM state should always reflect the
> current hardware state. If the configuration that we program does not
> reflect the state that was requested, that should be reflected in the
> PWM state.

I'm not sure you blessed what is really done here. If I do:

state.duty_cycle = state.period;
pwm_apply_state(pwm, &state);

the call in question doesn't only result in pwm->state.duty_cycle <
pwm->state.period, but it also corrects my local state variable (i.e. I
have state.duty_cycle < state.period afterwards).

Is this what you thought to be fine?

Also note that v6 dropped that call because of my doubts.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-14 16:59    [W:0.089 / U:2.356 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site