[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201204085839.GA2937@gofer.mess.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:58:39 +0000
From: Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
To: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, thierry.reding@...il.com,
lee.jones@...aro.org, nsaenzjulienne@...e.de, f.fainelli@...il.com,
rjui@...adcom.com, sbranden@...adcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: bcm2835: Support apply function for atomic
configuration
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 08:44:17AM +0000, Sean Young wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:42:15AM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> > According to commit 11fc4edc4 rounding to the closest integer has been introduced
> > to improve precision in case that the pwm controller is used by the pwm-ir-tx driver.
> > I dont know how strong the requirement is to round down the period in apply(), but I
> > can imagine that this may be a good reason to deviate from this rule.
> > (CCing Sean Young who introduced DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST)
>
> There was a problem where the carrier is incorrect for some IR hardware
> which uses a carrier of 455kHz. With periods that small, rounding errors
> do really matter and rounding down might cause problems.
>
> A policy of rounding down the carrier is not the right thing to do
> for pwm-ir-tx, and such a change will probably break pwm-ir-tx in some
> edge cases.
Let me rephrase that.
Changing the division to rounding down will exactly revert the fix I made
in commit 11fc4edc483bea8bf0efa0cc726886d2342f6fa6.
So in the case described in that commit, the requested frequency was 455kHz,
but rounding down resulted in a frequency of 476kHz.
That's totally broken and a bad idea.
Sean
Powered by blists - more mailing lists