From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: "Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:41:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e79b176-7e58-7ecb-0f82-ebfd0c777af3@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200707190955.e7wzmphdgi5reeyg@pengutronix.de>
Hi,
On 7/7/20 9:09 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Hans,
>
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:31:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 7/7/20 9:34 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> But if we do then I think closest to the truth would be:
>>>>
>>>> state->period = UINT_MAX;
>>>> state->duty_cycle = 0;
>>>
>>> I'd say state->period = 1 & state->duty_cycle = 0 is a better
>>> representation.
>>
>> But that would suggest the output is configured for an
>> infinitely high output frequency, but the frequency is
>> actually 0, the reason why get_state needs to treat a
>> base_unit val of 0 special at all is to avoid a division
>> by 0, and in math dividing by 0 gives infinite, isn't
>> UINT_MAX a better way to represent infinity ?
>
> Given that duty_cycle is 0, how can to tell anything about the period
> when only seeing the signal (= a constant low)?
>
> Given that (ideally) a period is completed when pwm_apply_state() is
> called, a short period is much more sensible.
Ok, I will add a patch to v4 of the patch-set to adjust the pwm-lpss
driver's get_state method accordingly.
Regards,
Hans
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel@pengutronix.de,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:41:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e79b176-7e58-7ecb-0f82-ebfd0c777af3@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200707190955.e7wzmphdgi5reeyg@pengutronix.de>
Hi,
On 7/7/20 9:09 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Hans,
>
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:31:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 7/7/20 9:34 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> But if we do then I think closest to the truth would be:
>>>>
>>>> state->period = UINT_MAX;
>>>> state->duty_cycle = 0;
>>>
>>> I'd say state->period = 1 & state->duty_cycle = 0 is a better
>>> representation.
>>
>> But that would suggest the output is configured for an
>> infinitely high output frequency, but the frequency is
>> actually 0, the reason why get_state needs to treat a
>> base_unit val of 0 special at all is to avoid a division
>> by 0, and in math dividing by 0 gives infinite, isn't
>> UINT_MAX a better way to represent infinity ?
>
> Given that duty_cycle is 0, how can to tell anything about the period
> when only seeing the signal (= a constant low)?
>
> Given that (ideally) a period is completed when pwm_apply_state() is
> called, a short period is much more sensible.
Ok, I will add a patch to v4 of the patch-set to adjust the pwm-lpss
driver's get_state method accordingly.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
kernel@pengutronix.de,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 21:41:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e79b176-7e58-7ecb-0f82-ebfd0c777af3@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200707190955.e7wzmphdgi5reeyg@pengutronix.de>
Hi,
On 7/7/20 9:09 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Hans,
>
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:31:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> On 7/7/20 9:34 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> But if we do then I think closest to the truth would be:
>>>>
>>>> state->period = UINT_MAX;
>>>> state->duty_cycle = 0;
>>>
>>> I'd say state->period = 1 & state->duty_cycle = 0 is a better
>>> representation.
>>
>> But that would suggest the output is configured for an
>> infinitely high output frequency, but the frequency is
>> actually 0, the reason why get_state needs to treat a
>> base_unit val of 0 special at all is to avoid a division
>> by 0, and in math dividing by 0 gives infinite, isn't
>> UINT_MAX a better way to represent infinity ?
>
> Given that duty_cycle is 0, how can to tell anything about the period
> when only seeing the signal (= a constant low)?
>
> Given that (ideally) a period is completed when pwm_apply_state() is
> called, a short period is much more sensible.
Ok, I will add a patch to v4 of the patch-set to adjust the pwm-lpss
driver's get_state method accordingly.
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-07 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 114+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-20 12:17 [PATCH v3 00/15] acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 01/15] ACPI / LPSS: Resume Cherry Trail PWM controller in no-irq phase Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 16:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 16:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 16:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 02/15] ACPI / LPSS: Save Cherry Trail PWM ctx registers only once (at activation) Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 16:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 16:04 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-22 16:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 03/15] pwm: lpss: Fix off by one error in base_unit math in pwm_lpss_prepare() Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:25 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:25 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:25 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 04/15] pwm: lpss: Add range limit check for the base_unit register value Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:35 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-06 20:53 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 20:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 20:53 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:34 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:34 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 8:04 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 8:04 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 8:04 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 17:31 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 17:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 17:31 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 19:09 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 19:09 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 19:09 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 19:41 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2020-07-07 19:41 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 19:41 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 05/15] pwm: lpss: Use pwm_lpss_apply() when restoring state on resume Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 06/15] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256 Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 07/15] pwm: crc: Fix off-by-one error in the clock-divider calculations Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 08/15] pwm: crc: Fix period changes not having any effect Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 09/15] pwm: crc: Enable/disable PWM output on enable/disable Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:55 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:55 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:55 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-06 21:03 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 21:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 21:03 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:26 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:26 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:26 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 10/15] pwm: crc: Implement apply() method to support the new atomic PWM API Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 11/15] pwm: crc: Implement get_state() method Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-22 7:57 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:57 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-22 7:57 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-06 21:05 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 21:05 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 21:05 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 21:05 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:24 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:24 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 12/15] drm/i915: panel: Add get_vbt_pwm_freq() helper Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 13/15] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM frequency for devs with an external PWM controller Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 14/15] drm/i915: panel: Honor the VBT PWM min setting " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 15/15] drm/i915: panel: Use atomic PWM API " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:17 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 7:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:50 ` [Intel-gfx] " Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 7:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2020-07-07 19:21 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 19:21 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-07 19:21 ` Hans de Goede
2020-06-20 12:41 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for acpi/pwm/i915: Convert pwm-crc and i915 driver's PWM code to use the atomic PWM API Patchwork
2020-06-20 13:04 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2020-06-20 14:10 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2020-06-30 13:51 ` [PATCH v3 00/15] " Jani Nikula
2020-06-30 13:51 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2020-06-30 13:51 ` Jani Nikula
2020-06-30 13:51 ` Jani Nikula
2020-07-06 20:53 ` Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 20:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Hans de Goede
2020-07-06 20:53 ` Hans de Goede
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=0e79b176-7e58-7ecb-0f82-ebfd0c777af3@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.