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