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

[Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@sifive.com>]

Hi Uwe,

Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@sifive.com> 於 2023年2月3日 週五 下午4:06寫道：
>
> Hi Uwe,
>
> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> 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@sifive.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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 have some results from my observations regarding the questions you raised.

I don't know if what we are thinking is the same thing.

If my assumptions are different from yours, please let me know. Thanks.
> are you mean state->period is a redundancy variable so we can use
> ddata->real_period directly?
>
> it seems reasonable, but I don't get your point, why do we need to
> change the algorithm to DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL() and change the if-else
> condition.
>
> frac = DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(num, ddata->real_period);
> if (state->period < ddata->approx_period) {
>     ...
> }
>
> >
> > Best regards
> > Uwe
> >
> > --
> > Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> > Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |