Re: [PATCH v12 1/2] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver
From: Uwe Kleine-König
Date: Mon Dec 05 2022 - 11:03:51 EST
Hello Conor,
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 03:21:55PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> I came into work today thinking that I could just rebase on top of your
> patchset and send out a v13, but that was unfortunately not the case :/
>
> So uh, it turns out that I was wrong about the behaviour of the
> sync_update register's bit.
> It turns out that that bit holds it's value until the IP block is reset,
> and /does not/ get cleared at the start of the next period.
> I'm really not sure how it worked when I tested the other week [0], so I
> spent the first half of the day trying to figure out what on earth had
> happened to my FPGA image. I must've picked the wrong image when I went
> to test it the other week that had the wrong configuration somehow.
>
> As a result, I've gone and hacked up another way of transferring the
> burden of waiting - setting a timer for the period, backed by a
> completion. get_state() and apply() now both check for the completion
> and time out otherwise. I'm half tempted to tack RFC back onto the
> series as I have not really messed with timers at all before and may
> have done something off the wall.
>
> I pushed it out (see [1] in case you'd like to look) so that the bots
> can have a play with it, since it'll be a few weeks before I'll have a
> chance to properly test that I've broken nothing with this.
I didn't look, but I'm convinced you don't need a timer. Something like
the following should work, shouldn't it?:
- in .apply() check the current time, add the current period and store
the result to ddata->updatetimestamp
- in .get_state do:
if (current_time >= ddata->updatetimestamp)
process fine
else:
timeout (or wait until ddata->updatetimestamp?)
Actually I'd prefer to wait instead of -ETIMEOUT.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature