From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thierry.reding@gmail.com,
kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jbrunet@baylibre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] pwm: meson: fix scheduling while atomic issue
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 20:47:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190331184730.y767dxhblffxj3om@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCCGWsb+1WHFe6uwrpUYgH4iix0WT8_v_Nj5BhGKRyjiLQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:29:35PM +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hello Uwe,
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 9:07 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > - Does stopping the PWM (i.e. clearing MISC_{A,B}_EN in the MISC_AB
> > > > register) freeze the output, or is the currently running period
> > > > completed first? (The latter is the right behaviour.)
> > > I don't know, I would have to measure this with a logic analyzer.
> >
> > In practise you can do this with a multimeter, too. Just do something
> > like:
> >
> > pwm_apply_state({ .enabled = true, .period = 5s, .duty_cycle = 5s, .polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL });
> > pwm_apply_state({ .enabled = false, .period = 5s, .duty_cycle = 5s, .polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL });
> >
> > (assuming the PWM supports periods that long). The expectation is that
> > the last command takes nearly 5 s to complete and while it waits the
> > output is high and on return it's low. If that isn't the case, there is
> > a bug somewhere.
> the longest supported period (using the 24MHz crystal as input, which
> is the slowest input clock and thus gives the longest possible
> duration) is 349514407ns (that's approx. 0.35 seconds). my multimeter
> isn't fast enough to measure this so I'm using my logic analyzer with
> puleseview instead: [0]
>
> I added the following code to meson_pwm_request:
> struct pwm_state enable = {
> .enabled = true,
> .period = 349514407U,
> .duty_cycle = 349514407U,
> .polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL };
> struct pwm_state disable = {
> .enabled = false,
> .period = 349514407U,
> .duty_cycle = 349514407U,
> .polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL };
> pwm_apply_state(pwm, &enable);
> pwm_apply_state(pwm, &disable);
>
> this returns immediately. my logic analyzer doesn't see signal change
> (I'm sampling at 1MHz).
>
> can you please confirm that my test code and measurement procedure is correct?
> if it is then my observation is that disabling the PWM does so
> immediately, without waiting for the current period to complete
Ack, with the above two pwm_apply_state the output must be high when the
first pwm_apply_state returns. Then it must stay high for n *
349514407 ns (for an natural n >= 1) and then go low.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-31 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-24 22:02 [PATCH 0/1] pwm: meson: fix scheduling while atomic issue Martin Blumenstingl
2019-03-24 22:02 ` [PATCH 1/1] pwm: meson: use the spin-lock only to protect register modifications Martin Blumenstingl
2019-03-25 8:48 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2019-03-25 8:41 ` [PATCH 0/1] pwm: meson: fix scheduling while atomic issue Uwe Kleine-König
2019-03-25 8:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2019-03-25 17:41 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-03-25 20:07 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2019-03-26 20:05 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-03-30 19:29 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-03-31 18:47 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2019-04-01 7:25 ` Neil Armstrong
2019-03-26 9:06 ` Neil Armstrong
2019-03-26 10:54 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2019-03-25 9:35 ` Jerome Brunet
2019-03-25 18:04 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-03-26 8:37 ` Jerome Brunet
2019-03-26 8:57 ` Neil Armstrong
2019-03-26 20:16 ` Martin Blumenstingl
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=20190331184730.y767dxhblffxj3om@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=jbrunet@baylibre.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com \
--cc=narmstrong@baylibre.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).