linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Clemens Gruber <clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@heig-vd.ch>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pwm: pca9685: fix prescaler initialization
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:10:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1484842208.2133.245.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170119144925.GA1660@archie.localdomain>

On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 15:49 +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:34:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 15:25 +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> > > Yes, that's what this patch tries to solve by verifying that the
> > > external setting (the prescale register) is set to its hardware
> > > default
> > > value of 0x1E (corresponding to a period of 1/200 Hz).
> > > If it is not 0x1E, the driver will reconfigure the prescaler
> > > according
> > > to the desired period at the time of the next configuration.
> > 
> > Yes, and my question is what is possible go wrong if you just
> > enforce
> > prescaler to be 1/200Hz?
> 
> If we enforce a default of 1 / 200 Hz, we have to go through the SLEEP
> mode and udelay for 0.5ms once for our default and then again for the
> user, if he does not want a period of 1 / 200 Hz.
> -> Number of prescaler changes: 1 or 2
> 
> I think it is better as it is now + my patch applied: We verify if the
> prescaler is already set to 1 / 200 Hz.
> Then, as soon as the user configures his PWM channels, we either do
> not
> have to change the prescaler at all (if he wants 1 / 200 Hz) or do it
> once at the time of configuration.
> -> Number of prescaler changes: 0 or 1
> 
> What's the advantage of enforcing the prescaler to 1 / 200 Hz in the
> probe function when we do not know yet if 1 / 200 Hz is the period the
> user is going to configure?

Advantage of this proposal is to get to known state.
Combining with your proposal I would see the best approach is to set
pca->period_ns accordingly to current prescaler value if you want to.

In your patch I see no benefit, since it's quite unlikely user will want
to have 5ms period among all possibilities.

The 500us delay at the _first_ configuration is not a big deal.

So, summarize, I prefer (in order of preference from high to low):
- enforce default prescaler value based on default period (it's just one
line to write a register)
- calculate default period based on actual prescaler value
- your or similar solution

If you still disagree with that, I rest my case.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-19 16:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-13 15:52 [PATCH 1/2] pwm: pca9685: fix period change with same duty cycle Clemens Gruber
2016-12-13 15:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] pwm: pca9685: fix prescaler initialization Clemens Gruber
2017-01-18 10:57   ` Thierry Reding
2017-01-18 11:09     ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-18 13:53       ` Clemens Gruber
2017-01-18 14:01         ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-18 14:25           ` Clemens Gruber
2017-01-19 12:34             ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-19 14:49               ` Clemens Gruber
2017-01-19 16:10                 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2017-01-19 16:52                   ` Clemens Gruber
2017-01-19 16:58                     ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-20  6:39                     ` Thierry Reding
2017-01-20  9:58                       ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-01-25 18:05                       ` Clemens Gruber
2017-01-18 10:56 ` [PATCH 1/2] pwm: pca9685: fix period change with same duty cycle Thierry Reding
2017-01-18 11:09   ` Mika Westerberg
2017-01-20  6:44 ` Thierry Reding

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1484842208.2133.245.camel@linux.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=clemens.gruber@pqgruber.com \
    --cc=florian.vaussard@heig-vd.ch \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).