[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e3e1bca1-bffa-d97a-d4af-27a10c43c064@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 09:51:12 +0300
From: Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com>
Cc: Sean Young <sean@...s.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>, 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 2/3] pwm: bcm2835: allow pwm driver to be used in
atomic context
On 13.10.23 г. 20:51 ч., Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 01:13:50PM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 13. Oktober 2023, 13:04:48 CEST schrieb Stefan Wahren:
>>> Am 13.10.23 um 12:46 schrieb Sean Young:
>>>> clk_get_rate() may do a mutex lock. Since the clock rate cannot change on
>>>> an rpi, simply fetch it once.
>>>
>>> does it mean you checked all possible SoCs (BCM2835, BCM2836, BCM2837,
>>> BCM2711, BCM2712) for this change?
>>>
>>> Is it impossible that the real clock can never be influenced by turbo
>>> mode like SPI?
>>
>> Assuming the clock can change, which I would, then a clock notifier seems
>> appropriate. See [1] for an example.
>
> I'm not a fan. If the clock changes, the output also changes. With a
> clock notifier you can soften the issue and reconfigure to something
> similar as the original wave form, but a glitch happens for sure.
>
Right, but without notifier, everything rate related after the change
will be wrong
Ivo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists