From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7D5C433F5 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231578AbiI3Ntw (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:49:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39486 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231569AbiI3Ntr (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:49:47 -0400 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com (esa.microchip.iphmx.com [68.232.154.123]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C211363B1; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 06:49:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1664545782; x=1696081782; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=n9ebYPlj7qybcpG08KXmsqxmGM43O0sG2jH9VygklZk=; b=bxCo1loqqSmCvb/R0u+UpGVYTBor68rGrNzqEQot92db2V0GXcJJr57i Tb7ODy5mzsVyPpNC+e6Wiob4x9mS4ubDC0iDLK1nmEITm+54ghQ4/ljC/ nAPfG16DyINPFh7MMJosaVBb8bWKxnSNzf0c7K+3sRJRQ0KknAqfEw6Uy McqL7TJ6sBqp1D0CCDi4gdBffTcK4tReN09zpJrkn4y/Hew9/LLr4PJYy RicV7yYC+QlmwGMlUQm+0ULJuBWo65dyqQGOYPT+SSARWPIYPzFMa4pT/ QRzAM2l5pMFwDI2h/wfuUkzZXflhpHgjZvEwelmqY9D3TbJz9HPOU2tzA w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,358,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="179788492" Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa2.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 30 Sep 2022 06:49:41 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) by chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.12; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 06:49:35 -0700 Received: from wendy (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.12 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 06:49:33 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:49:12 +0100 From: Conor Dooley To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= CC: Thierry Reding , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Daire McNamara , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/4] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver Message-ID: References: <20220824091215.141577-1-conor.dooley@microchip.com> <20220824091215.141577-4-conor.dooley@microchip.com> <20220915072152.y346csakn7wetpz5@pengutronix.de> <20220919135008.sahwmwbfwvgplji4@pengutronix.de> <20220930091316.kdkf4oeu6uvxzqa6@pengutronix.de> <20220930133933.br5kanbh3clvahvr@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220930133933.br5kanbh3clvahvr@pengutronix.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 03:39:33PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > 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().) Right, so I guess I will drop the check so. That's good to know, thanks. Would you rather I waited until after the mw to send v11? Thanks, Conor.