[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231211204950.fkaqsnpzb6kixqf2@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:49:50 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@...ive.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, thierry.reding@...il.com,
emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com, vincent.chen@...ive.com,
greentime.hu@...ive.com, zong.li@...ive.com, nylon7717@...il.com
Subject: Re: [v5 2/2] pwm: sifive: change the PWM controlled LED algorithm
Hello Nylon,
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:19:02PM +0800, Nylon Chen wrote:
> The `frac` variable represents the pulse inactive time, and the result
> of this algorithm is the pulse active time. Therefore, we must reverse the result.
>
> The reference is SiFive FU740-C000 Manual[0]
>
> Link: https://sifive.cdn.prismic.io/sifive/1a82e600-1f93-4f41-b2d8-86ed8b16acba_fu740-c000-manual-v1p6.pdf [0]
>
> Signed-off-by: Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@...ive.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Chen <vincent.chen@...ive.com>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> index eabddb7c7820..353c2342fbf1 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static void pwm_sifive_update_clock(struct pwm_sifive_ddata *ddata,
>
> /* As scale <= 15 the shift operation cannot overflow. */
> num = (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC << (PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH + scale);
> - ddata->real_period = div64_ul(num, rate);
> + ddata->real_period = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(num, rate);
It's unclear to me, why you changed that.
> dev_dbg(ddata->chip.dev,
> "New real_period = %u ns\n", ddata->real_period);
> }
> @@ -121,13 +121,14 @@ static int pwm_sifive_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> state->enabled = false;
>
> state->period = ddata->real_period;
> +
> + duty = (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1 - duty;
I would have placed that directly after
duty = readl(...);
which then also influences
state->enabled = duty > 0;
(as it should?).
> state->duty_cycle =
> (u64)duty * ddata->real_period >> PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH;
> - state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
> + state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
>
> return 0;
> }
> -
> static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> const struct pwm_state *state)
> {
> @@ -139,7 +140,7 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> int ret = 0;
> u32 frac;
>
> - if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
> + if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> cur_state = pwm->state;
> @@ -158,6 +159,7 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> num = (u64)duty_cycle * (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH);
> frac = DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST(num, state->period);
> /* The hardware cannot generate a 100% duty cycle */
> + frac = (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1 - frac;
> frac = min(frac, (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1);
frac can only be > (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1 if an overflow
happend the line above. Is that what you want here?
> mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
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