Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] pwm: sun4i: Add support to output source clock directly

From: "Clément Péron" <peron.clem@gmail.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@siol.net>,
	devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Philipp Zabel <pza@pengutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] pwm: sun4i: Add support to output source clock directly
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:34:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJiuCcd3qAP=xODJWcvay6q-MbLeBvX5tAtuUj7dFcp8biXzOw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191107065118.j4s5cghj4ark7sql@pengutronix.de>

Hi Uwe,

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 07:51, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Clément,
>
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 10:24:39PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 15:57, Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Clément Péron wrote:
> > > > +     bypass = state->enabled &&
> > > > +              (state->period * clk_rate >= NSEC_PER_SEC) &&
> > >
> > > This is too coarse. With state->period = 1000000 this is fulfilled
> > > (unless the multiplication overflows).
> >
> > Sorry, misunderstood the previous mail
> >
> > What about something like this ?
> > ((state->period - 1) * clk_rate <= NSEC_PER_SEC) &&
> > ((state->period + 1) * clk_rate >= NSEC_PER_SEC) &&
> >  ((state->duty_cycle - 1) * 2 <= state->period) &&
> >  ((state->duty_cycle + 1) * 2 >= state->period);
> >
> > We are sure that the user is looking for a PWM around the OSC with a
> > 50% duty cycle ?
>
> This again is too strict. The general policy to fulfill a request is:
>
>  1) provide the longest possible period not bigger than requested
>  2) provide the longest possible duty cycle not bigger than requested
>  3) if possible complete the currently running period before switching
>     and don't return to the user before the new setting is active.
>     Document the behaviour prominently because the code (usually)
>     doesn't allow to understand the hardware's features here.
>  4) A disabled PWM should output the inactive level

Thanks for the explanation

>
> And then there is a corner case: If the user requests .duty_cycle = 0,
> .enabled = 1 it is ok to provide .enabled = 0 iff otherwise 0% isn't
> possible.
>
> So the right check for bypass is:
>
>   state->period * clk_rate >= NSEC_PER_SEC &&
>   state->period * clk_rate < whatevercanbereachedwithoutbypass &&
>   state->duty_cycle * clk_rate * 2 >= NSEC_PER_SEC

The shortest PWM ratio which is not a constant output is 12MHz.
(Prescal 1, 2 entire cycle and 1 active cycle)

So something like this :
state->period * clk_rate >= NSEC_PER_SEC &&
state->period * clk_rate < 2 * NSEC_PER_SEC &&
state->duty_cycle * clk_rate * 2 >= NSEC_PER_SEC

I will send a v4,
Thanks for the help
Regards,
Clément

>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel