Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver

Uwe Kleine-König
2022-09-30T13:39:54Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2437 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:45:56AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 11:13:16AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 03:29:19PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > Hey Uwe,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 03:50:08PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 01:53:56PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > Because I was running into conflicts between the reporting here and some
> > > > > of the checks that I have added to prevent the PWM being put into an
> > > > > invalid state. On boot both negedge and posedge will be zero & this was
> > > > > preventing me from setting the period at all.
> > > >
> > > > I don't understood that.
> > >
> > > On startup, (negedge == posedge) is true as both are zero, but the reset
> > > values for prescale and period are actually 0x8. If on reset I try to
> > > set a small period, say "echo 1000 > period" apply() returns -EINVAL
> > > because of a check in the pwm core in pwm_apply_state() as I am
> > > attempting to set the period to lower than the out-of-reset duty cycle.
> >
> > You're supposed to keep the period for pwm#1 untouched while configuring
> > pwm#0 only if pwm#1 already has a consumer. So if pwm#1 isn't requested,
> > you can change the period for pwm#0.
>
> I must have done a bad job of explaining here, as I don't think this is
> an answer to my question.
>
> On reset, the prescale and period_steps registers are set to 0x8. If I
> attempt to set the period to do "echo 1000 > period", I get -EINVAL back
> from pwm_apply_state() (in next-20220928 it's @ L562 in pwm/core.c) as
> the duty cycle is computed as twice the period as, on reset, we have
> posedge = negedge = 0x0. The check of state->duty_cycle > state->period
> fails in pwm_apply_state() as a result.

So set duty_cycle to 0 first?

A problem of the sysfs interface is that you can only set one parameter
after the other. So there you have to find a sequence of valid
pwm_states that only differ in a single parameter between the initial
and the desired state.

That's nothing a "normal" pwm consumer would be affected by. (IMHO we
should have a userspace API that benefits from the properties of
pwm_apply().)

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]