[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170119165210.GA2139@archie.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:52:10 +0100
From: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@...g-vd.ch>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: pca9685: fix prescaler initialization
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 06:10:08PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Combining with your proposal I would see the best approach is to set
> pca->period_ns accordingly to current prescaler value if you want to.
Yes, I agree.
> In your patch I see no benefit, since it's quite unlikely user will want
> to have 5ms period among all possibilities.
It is the hardware default, but you are right, the user probably does
not care about that.
> So, summarize, I prefer (in order of preference from high to low):
> - enforce default prescaler value based on default period (it's just one
> line to write a register)
> - calculate default period based on actual prescaler value
Let's go with this one. I'll spin up a v2 where I calculate the
period_ns value from the current prescaler value in the probe function.
--
Thierry: I think you could merge v1 of patch 1/2 from my series
independently.
I'll send v2 of patch 2/2 with aforementioned changes in the next days.
Thanks,
Clemens
Powered by blists - more mailing lists