[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1546721178.28727.0@crapouillou.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 17:46:18 -0300
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/27] pwm: jz4740: Use regmap from TCU driver
Hi Uwe,
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 4:42 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 07:13:04PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>> The ingenic-timer "TCU" driver provides us with a regmap, that we
>> can
>> use to safely access the TCU registers.
>>
>> While this driver is devicetree-compatible, it is never (as of now)
>> probed from devicetree, so this change does not introduce a ABI
>> problem
>> with current devicetree files.
>
> Does it change behaviour? If so, how?
No, it does not change the behaviour.
>> @@ -113,26 +117,37 @@ static int jz4740_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip
>> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
>>
>> jz4740_pwm_disable(chip, pwm);
>>
>> - jz4740_timer_set_count(pwm->hwpwm, 0);
>> - jz4740_timer_set_duty(pwm->hwpwm, duty);
>> - jz4740_timer_set_period(pwm->hwpwm, period);
>> + /* Set abrupt shutdown */
>> + regmap_update_bits(jz4740->map, TCU_REG_TCSRc(pwm->hwpwm),
>> + TCU_TCSR_PWM_SD, TCU_TCSR_PWM_SD);
>
> I think I already pointed that out before: abrupt mode is wrong. If
> .apply is called with a new set of parameters the currently running
> period with the old values is expected to complete before the new
> values
> take effect.
You pointed it, indeed; but I won't change it until I can verify that
the
behaviour is correct (which does not seem to be the case even if I leave
this bit cleared). Besides, this is the TCU patchset, fixes and patches
unrelated to the TCU don't belong here.
> Best regards
> Uwe
Kind regards,
-Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists