[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200727200044.qmrpjua3fewli3vo@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:00:44 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: "Tanwar, Rahul" <rahul.tanwar@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, thierry.reding@...il.com,
p.zabel@...gutronix.de, robh+dt@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...el.com, songjun.Wu@...el.com,
cheol.yong.kim@...el.com, qi-ming.wu@...el.com,
rahul.tanwar.linux@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] Add PWM fan controller driver for LGM SoC
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 03:30:16PM +0800, Tanwar, Rahul wrote:
> On 27/7/2020 3:01 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > In v4 you had:
> >
> > if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL ||
> > state->period < pc->period)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > That's the right thing to do (even though I was unsettled at one point
> > and wrote it was wrong). The check in v5 with state->period !=
> > pc->period is wrong.
>
> Does that mean we should allow state->period >= pc->period cases?
Yes, the driver is supposed to implement the longest period not longer
than the requested one. This implies everything >= pc->period is fine.
> If the state->period is greater than HW supported pc->period and
> if we allow it then the duty cycle will again be evaluated to be
> incorrect/higher than requested duty cycle. Am i missing something
> else? Thanks.
Yes, similar as with period you're supposed to implement the longest
duty cycle your hardware supports and that is not longer than the
requested duty cycle.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists