Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] pwm: sifive: change the PWM controlled LED algorithm

[Nylon Chen]

Hi Uwe

Thanks for your reply.

Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2023年3月1日 週三 下午5:21寫道：
>
> Hello Nylon,
>
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 04:56:42PM +0800, Nylon Chen wrote:
> > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2023年1月30日 週一 下午6:17寫道：
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 05:32:29PM +0800, Nylon Chen wrote:
> > > > The `frac` variable represents the pulse inactive time, and the result of
> > > > this algorithm is the pulse active time. Therefore, we must reverse the
> > > > result.
> > > >
> > > > The reference is SiFive FU740-C000 Manual[0].
> > > >
> > > > [0]: https://sifive.cdn.prismic.io/sifive/1a82e600-1f93-4f41-b2d8-86ed8b16acba_fu740-c000-manual-v1p6.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > > > index 62b6acc6373d..a5eda165d071 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
> > > > @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > >       frac = DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST(num, state->period);
> > > >       /* The hardware cannot generate a 100% duty cycle */
> > > >       frac = min(frac, (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1);
> > > > +     frac = (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1 - frac;
> > >
> > > The same problem exists in pwm_sifive_get_state(), doesn't it?
> > >
> > > As fixing this is an interruptive change anyhow, this is the opportunity
> > > to align the driver to the rules tested by PWM_DEBUG.
> > >
> > > The problems I see in the driver (only checked quickly, so I might be
> > > wrong):
> > >
> > >  - state->period != ddata->approx_period isn't necessarily a problem. If
> > >    state->period > ddata->real_period that's fine and the driver should
> > >    continue
> > >
> > >  - frac = DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST(num, state->period);
> > >    is wrong for two reasons:
> > >    it should round down and use the real period.
> > >
> > I need a little time to clarify your assumptions. If possible, I will
> > make similar changes.
> >
> > e.g.
> > rounddown(num, state->period);
> > if (state->period < ddata->approx_period)
> >     ...
>
> the idea is that for a given request apply should do the following to
> select the hardware setting:
>
>  - Check polarity, if the hardware doesn't support it, return -EINVAL.
>    (A period always starts with the active phase for the duration of
>    duty_cycle. For normal polarity active = high.)
>  - Pick the biggest period length possible that is not bigger than the
>    requested period.
>  - For the picked period, select the biggest duty_cycle possible that is
>    not bigger than the requested duty_cycle.
>
> Then if possible switch to the selected setting in an atomic step.
>
> Does this clearify your doubts?
I need a little time to clarify your assumptions. Thanks again.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |