[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHWFs1f0XHkqbddp@orome.fritz.box>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 13:51:15 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@...il.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] dt-bindings: pwm: Support new PWM_USAGE_POWER flag
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:27:23PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:27:41PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > Add the flag and corresponding documentation for PWM_USAGE_POWER.
>
> My concern here in the previous round was that PWM_USAGE_POWER isn't a
> name that intuitively suggests its semantic. Do you disagree?
I suggested PWM_USAGE_POWER because I think it accurately captures what
we want here.
> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@...ruber.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt | 3 +++
> > include/dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt
> > index 084886bd721e..fe3a28f887c0 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm.txt
> > @@ -46,6 +46,9 @@ period in nanoseconds.
> > Optionally, the pwm-specifier can encode a number of flags (defined in
> > <dt-bindings/pwm/pwm.h>) in a third cell:
> > - PWM_POLARITY_INVERTED: invert the PWM signal polarity
> > +- PWM_USAGE_POWER: Only care about the power output of the signal. This
> > + allows drivers (if supported) to optimize the signals, for example to
> > + improve EMI and reduce current spikes.
>
> IMHO there are too many open questions about which freedom this gives to
> the lowlevel driver. If the consumer requests .duty_cycle = 25ns +
> .period = 100ns, can the driver provide .duty_cycle = 25s + .period =
> 100s which nominally has the same power output? Let's not introduce more
> ambiguity than there already is.
The freedom given to the driver should be to adjust the signal within
reasonable bounds. Changing the time unit by a factor of 1000000000 is
not within reason, and I doubt anyone would interpret it that way, even
if we didn't document this at all.
To be frank I think that quest of yours to try and rid the PWM API of
all ambiguity is futile. I've been trying to be lenient because you seem
motivated, but I think you're taking this too far. There are always
going to be cases that aren't completely clear-cut and where drivers
need the flexibility to cheat in order to be useful at all. If we get to
a point where everything needs to be 100% accurate, the majority of the
PWM controllers won't be usable at all.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists