[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230406135358.x3et6gvvxqsknfn6@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:53:58 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Lorenz Brun <lorenz@...n.one>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: mediatek: support inverted polarity
Hello Thierry,
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:38:48PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:04:10AM +0100, Lorenz Brun wrote:
> > + * appear to have the capability to invert the output.
> > + * This means that inverted mode can not be fully supported as the
> > + * waveform will always start with the low period and end with the high
> > + * period. Thus reject non-normal polarity if the shape of the waveform
> > + * matters, i.e. usage_power is not set.
> > + */
> > + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL && !state->usage_power)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > if (!state->enabled) {
> > @@ -213,7 +221,11 @@ static int pwm_mediatek_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > - err = pwm_mediatek_config(pwm->chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
> > + duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
> > + if (state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> > + duty_cycle = state->period - state->duty_cycle;
>
> That's not really what state->usage_power was meant to address.
I don't understand your concern here. I don't like .usage_power, but
AFAICT this is a legitimite use. With .usage_power = true, the lowlevel
driver is free to shift the phase_offset and even modify the period size
and the goal is just that the average power-output matches.
Lorenz's patch does exactly this: It even keeps the period and only
shifts the phase (by period - duty_cycle). If you consider this not
legitmate, I think we have to improve the docs about .usage_power.
> What's wrong with just reversing the duty cycle in the pwm-fan? If you
> use DT it's quite trivial to do that by just reversing the entries in
> your cooling-levels property. Does that not work for you?
That's an option, too. With a different PWM (i.e. one that can do proper
inverted polarity) Lorenz's solution would be ok, though, right? And the
pwm-fan only cares about the relative duty_cycle and not the phase
shift, so setting .usage_power = true is fine, 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