Thread (12 messages) 12 messages, 3 authors, 2019-10-02

Re: [PATCH 3/4] pwm: mxs: add support for inverse polarity

From: Uwe Kleine-König <hidden>
Date: 2019-09-23 08:27:41
Also in: linux-devicetree, linux-pwm, lkml

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:13:47AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
If I'm reading of_pwm_xlate_with_flags() right, existing device trees
that set #pwm-cells = 2 will continue to work.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
---
 drivers/pwm/pwm-mxs.c | 14 ++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mxs.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mxs.c
index 284107784dad..c46697acaf11 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-mxs.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-mxs.c
@@ -25,8 +25,11 @@
 #define  PERIOD_PERIOD(p)	((p) & 0xffff)
 #define  PERIOD_PERIOD_MAX	0x10000
 #define  PERIOD_ACTIVE_HIGH	(3 << 16)
+#define  PERIOD_ACTIVE_LOW	(2 << 16)
+#define  PERIOD_INACTIVE_HIGH	(3 << 18)
 #define  PERIOD_INACTIVE_LOW	(2 << 18)
 #define  PERIOD_POLARITY_NORMAL	(PERIOD_ACTIVE_HIGH | PERIOD_INACTIVE_LOW)
+#define  PERIOD_POLARITY_INVERSE	(PERIOD_ACTIVE_LOW | PERIOD_INACTIVE_HIGH)
 #define  PERIOD_CDIV(div)	(((div) & 0x7) << 20)
 #define  PERIOD_CDIV_MAX	8
 
@@ -50,9 +53,7 @@ static int mxs_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 	unsigned int period_cycles, duty_cycles;
 	unsigned long rate;
 	unsigned long long c;
-
-	if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
-		return -ENOTSUPP;
+	unsigned int pol_bits;
 
 	rate = clk_get_rate(mxs->clk);
 	while (1) {
@@ -81,9 +82,12 @@ static int mxs_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			return ret;
 	}
 
+	pol_bits = state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL ?
+		PERIOD_POLARITY_NORMAL : PERIOD_POLARITY_INVERSE;
+
 	writel(duty_cycles << 16,
 	       mxs->base + PWM_ACTIVE0 + pwm->hwpwm * 0x20);
-	writel(PERIOD_PERIOD(period_cycles) | PERIOD_POLARITY_NORMAL | PERIOD_CDIV(div),
+	writel(PERIOD_PERIOD(period_cycles) | pol_bits | PERIOD_CDIV(div),
When will this affect the output? Only on the next start of a period, or
immediatly? Can it happen that this results in a mixed output (i.e. a
period that has already the new duty cycle from the line above but not
the new polarity (or period)?

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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help