[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210401205936.nnraoeeyo5nx3elf@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 22:59:36 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] pwm: pca9685: Support staggered output ON times
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:26:14PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 08:02:06PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 07:16:38PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 07:03:57PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:57:04PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > > > > > The PCA9685 supports staggered LED output ON times to minimize current
> > > > > > surges and reduce EMI.
> > > > > > When this new option is enabled, the ON times of each channel are
> > > > > > delayed by channel number x counter range / 16, which avoids asserting
> > > > > > all enabled outputs at the same counter value while still maintaining
> > > > > > the configured duty cycle of each output.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a reason to not want this staggered output? If it never hurts I
> > > > > suggest to always stagger and drop the dt property.
> > > >
> > > > There might be applications where you want multiple outputs to assert at
> > > > the same time / to be synchronized.
> > > > With staggered outputs mode always enabled, this would no longer be
> > > > possible as they are spread out according to their channel number.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure how often that usecase is required, but just enforcing the
> > > > staggered mode by default sounds risky to me.
> > >
> > > There is no such guarantee in the PWM framework, so I don't think we
> > > need to fear breaking setups. Thierry?
> >
> > Still, someone might rely on it? But let's wait for Thierry's opinion.
> >
> > >
> > > One reason we might not want staggering is if we have a consumer who
> > > cares about config transitions. (This however is moot it the hardware
> > > doesn't provide sane transitions even without staggering.)
> > >
> > > Did I already ask about races in this driver? I assume there is a
> > > free running counter and the ON and OFF registers just define where in
> > > the period the transitions happen, right? Given that changing ON and OFF
> > > needs two register writes probably all kind of strange things can
> > > happen, right? (Example thought: for simplicity's sake I assume ON is
> > > always 0. Then if you want to change from OFF = 0xaaa to OFF = 0xccc we
> > > might see a period with 0xacc. Depending on how the hardware works we
> > > might even see 4 edges in a single period then.)
> >
> > Yes, there is a free running counter from 0 to 4095.
> > And it is probably true, that there can be short intermediate states
> > with our two register writes.
> >
> > There is a separate mode "Update on ACK" (MODE2 register, bit 3 "OCH"),
> > which is 0 by default (Outputs change on STOP command) but could be set
> > to 1 (Outputs change on ACK):
> > "Update on ACK requires all 4 PWM channel registers to be loaded before
> > outputs will change on the last ACK."
>
> This would require the auto-increment feature to be enabled, then
> multiple registers could be written before the STOP condition:
> LEDn_ON_L, LEDn_ON_H, LEDn_OFF_L & LEDn_OFF_H
> (With OCH=0 in MODE2)
Maybe a continued START would work, too?!
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