[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAYSxhrMxjFNr-z1qQQRK88B2_GcWo_5MhQrwsht=zRWpp4SQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:12:51 -0700
From: Tim Kryger <tim.kryger@...aro.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
Device Tree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Doc List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Broadcom Kernel Feedback List
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] pwm: kona: Introduce Kona PWM controller support
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 04:47:36PM -0700, Tim Kryger wrote:
> Perhaps the comment for enum pwm_polarity in include/linux/pwm.h makes
> this more obvious. What you do here is invert the duty cycle, rather
> than the polarity. While it is true that the result is the same for
> things like LEDs or backlight (because the signal power remains the
> same), but there's a slight difference to what the PWM signal looks
> like.
Thanks, I missed that comment before.
>> Does polarity influence the output while a PWM is disabled?
>
> Yes, there is apparently hardware where the polarity causes the PWM pin
> to be 1 when the PWM is disabled. But that's really a separate issue.
Do you have a preference on how this should be handled?
> Things are starting to get confusing here. Looking at the register
> definitions, there's PWM_CONTROL_ENABLE_SHIFT(chan), which I suspect
> controls whether or not a channel is enabled (if that's not the case
> then please add a comment that explains what it does).
I've tried to do this but the unfortunate name for these bits and
their nuanced behavior makes it difficult.
>
> But a little further up you said that the hardware does only support a
> configure operation and not an enable/disable.
If you define disabled as zero duty output, then this is true.
When the smooth bit is off and the "enable" bit is off output is 100% duty.
>
> The comment above further confuses me. What I read from it is that you
> can in fact disable a channel by clearing the "enable" bit in the
> control register. But the reason why you don't do it that way is because
> that change won't take effect until "settings start to take effect". So
> in order to disable the PWM immediately you resort to writing a 0 duty
> cycle.
Sorry if my comments were confusing. New settings are only applied on
a rising edge of the "enable" bit. You should think of it more as a
trigger bit than an enable.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, in which case it might be good to revise that
> comment to be more explicit or accurate.
Perhaps it would be clearest to deviate from the hw docs and rename
PWM_CONTROL_ENABLE_SHIFT to PWM_CONTROL_TRIGGER_SHIFT to more closely
match its function. What do you think of the following?
/*
* New duty and period settings are only reflected in the PWM output
* after a rising edge of the trigger bit. After a rising edge, if the
* smooth bit is set, the settings are also delayed until the current
* period has completed. Furthermore, if the smooth bit is set, the PWM
* continues to output a waveform based on the old settings during the
* time that the trigger bit is low. Otherwise the output is a constant
* high signal while the trigger bit is low.
*/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists