[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190124104435.e6paqwcuz3hizwnv@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:44:35 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Michal Vokáč <michal.vokac@...ft.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Lothar Waßmann <LW@...o-electronics.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: imx: Configure output to GPIO in
disabled state
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:12:12AM +0100, Michal Vokáč wrote:
> On 24.1.2019 10:22, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > I think it might be beneficial to allow (or require) that disable acts
> > immediately. But this is not how it used to be and in my discussion with
> > Thierry (IIRC) he required to complete the currently running period.
>
> I am confused here. IFAIK it always used to be that:
>
> pwm_apply_state(pwm, { .enabled = 0 });
>
> immediately stops the PWM with:
>
> writel(0, imx->mmio_base + MX3_PWMCR);
>
> regardless of the period (for pwm-imx).
Then is is a bug since forever (well, or a fact that resulted from the
intended semantic not being documented and the driver author not caring
or knowing better).
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists