[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <l5ymy3rlqdlkwonyxq7xqgxgk5zsgbadui7p4ehl7qeh3m2pef@ic2zyktdqcia>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:01:23 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@...ive.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, conor@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, thierry.reding@...il.com, vincent.chen@...ive.com,
zong.li@...ive.com, nylon7717@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] pwm: sifive: change the PWM algorithm
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:07:12AM +0800, Nylon Chen wrote:
> Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@...ive.com> 於 2024年4月2日 週二 上午10:08寫道:
> > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> 於 2024年3月19日 週二 上午2:16寫道:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 04:12:30PM +0800, Nylon Chen wrote:
> > > > /* The hardware cannot generate a 100% duty cycle */
> Do you mean that if the inference is correct, this comment should be modified?
If the polarity was wrong before and the hardware was believed to not be
able to generate a 100% relative duty cycle, then maybe it's really a 0%
relative duty cycle that's impossible?
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