[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200807102441.qcshhsc36nzj7bpn@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:24:41 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/13] pwm: add support for sl28cpld PWM controller
Hi Michael,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 09:55:19AM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2020-08-07 09:45, schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 09:28:31AM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > Am 2020-08-06 10:40, schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 11:35:52AM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > > > +static void sl28cpld_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > > > > + struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > > + struct pwm_state *state)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct sl28cpld_pwm *priv = dev_get_drvdata(chip->dev);
> > > > > + unsigned int reg;
> > > > > + int prescaler;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + sl28cpld_pwm_read(priv, SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL, ®);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + state->enabled = reg & SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_ENABLE;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + prescaler = FIELD_GET(SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL_PRESCALER_MASK, reg);
> > > > > + state->period = SL28CPLD_PWM_PERIOD(prescaler);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + sl28cpld_pwm_read(priv, SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE, ®);
> > > > > + state->duty_cycle = SL28CPLD_PWM_TO_DUTY_CYCLE(reg);
> > > >
> > > > Should reg be masked to SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE_MAX, or is it guaranteed that
> > > > the upper bits are zero?
> > >
> > > Mh, the hardware guarantees that bit7 is zero. So masking with
> > > SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE_MAX won't buy us much. But what I could think
> > > could go wrong is this: someone set the prescaler to != 0 and the
> > > duty cycle to a value greater than the max value for this particular
> > > prescaler mode. For the above calculations this would result in a
> > > duty_cycle greater than the period, if I'm not mistaken.
> > >
> > > The behavior of the hardware is undefined in that case (at the moment
> > > it will be always on, I guess). So this isn't a valid setting.
> > > Nevertheless it might happen. So what about the following:
> > >
> > > state->duty_cycle = min(state->duty_cycle, state->period);
> >
> > If you care about this: This can also happen (at least shortly) in
> > sl28cpld_pwm_apply() as you write SL28CPLD_PWM_CTRL before
> > SL28CPLD_PWM_CYCLE there.
>
> It could also happen if it was the other way around, couldn't it?
> Changing modes might glitch.
If you want to prevent this, you have to order the writes depending on
prescaler increasing or decreasing.
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