[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121105210317.GA9930@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:03:17 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To: Alban Bedel <alban.bedel@...onic-design.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>,
Alexandre Pereira da Silva <aletes.xgr@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: lpc32xx - Fix the PWM polarity
Cc'ing Roland and Alexandre. What do you guys think?
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:48:45PM +0100, Alban Bedel wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alban Bedel <alban.bedel@...onic-design.de>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
> index adb87f0..a2704b8 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpc32xx.c
> @@ -51,7 +51,11 @@ static int lpc32xx_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>
> c = 256 * duty_ns;
> do_div(c, period_ns);
> - duty_cycles = c;
> + if (c > 255)
> + c = 255;
> + if (c < 1)
> + c = 1;
> + duty_cycles = 256 - c;
>
> writel(PWM_ENABLE | PWM_RELOADV(period_cycles) | PWM_DUTY(duty_cycles),
> lpc32xx->base + (pwm->hwpwm << 2));
Shouldn't duty_cycles rather be 255 - c, such that it can still be 0?
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists