[v4,2/2] pwm: Add support for R-Car PWM Timer

This patch adds support for R-Car SoCs PWM Timer.

Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>
---
 drivers/pwm/Kconfig    |  11 +++
 drivers/pwm/Makefile   |   1 +
 drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c | 261 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 273 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 07:57:26PM +0900, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
[...]
> +#define to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip)	container_of(chip, struct rcar_pwm_chip, chip)

For consistency with other drivers I'd like this to be a static inline
function.

> +
> +static void rcar_pwm_write(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, u32 data, u32 reg)
> +{
> +	iowrite32(data, rp->base + reg);
> +}
> +
> +static u32 rcar_pwm_read(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, u32 reg)
> +{
> +	return ioread32(rp->base + reg);
> +}

ioread*() and iowrite*() are to be used for devices that can be on a
memory-mapped bus or an I/O mapped bus. I suspect that this particular
IP block doesn't fall into that category, so it should be using the
regular readl()/writel() instead.

> +static void rcar_pwm_bit_modify(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp,
> +				u32 mask, u32 data, u32 reg)

You should try to fill up lines as much as you can: mask and data should
still fit on the first line.

> +{
> +	u32 val = rcar_pwm_read(rp, reg);
> +
> +	val &= ~mask;
> +	val |= data & mask;
> +	rcar_pwm_write(rp, val, reg);
> +}
> +
> +static int rcar_pwn_get_clock_division(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp,

Typo: "pwn" -> "pwm"

> +				       int period_ns)
> +{
> +	int div;

Perhaps make this unsigned int?

> +	unsigned long clk_rate = clk_get_rate(rp->clk);
> +	unsigned long long max;	/* max cycle / nanoseconds */

I think you want to check for clk_rate == 0 here and return an error.
Otherwise the do_div() call below may try to divide by 0.

> +	for (div = 0; div <= RCAR_PWM_MAX_DIVISION; div++) {
> +		max = (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC * RCAR_PWM_MAX_CYCLE *
> +			(1 << div);
> +		do_div(max, clk_rate);
> +		if (period_ns < max)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	return div;
> +}
> +
> +static void rcar_pwm_set_clock_control(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, int div)
> +{
> +	u32 val = rcar_pwm_read(rp, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +
> +	if (div > RCAR_PWM_MAX_DIVISION)
> +		return;

Shouldn't you return an error here (and propagate it later on) if an
invalid value is passed in? Or perhaps even avoid calling this function
with an invalid value in the first place? As it is, you're silently
ignoring cases where an invalid value is being passed in. That'll leave
anybody working with this driver completely puzzled when it doesn't
behave the way they expect it too. And it gives users no indication
about what went wrong.

> +
> +	val &= ~(RCAR_PWMCR_CCMD | RCAR_PWMCR_CC0_MASK);
> +	if (div & 1)
> +		val |= RCAR_PWMCR_CCMD;
> +	div >>= 1;
> +	val |= div << RCAR_PWMCR_CC0_SHIFT;
> +	rcar_pwm_write(rp, val, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +}
> +
> +static void rcar_pwm_set_counter(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, int div,
> +				 int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> +{
> +	unsigned long long one_cycle, tmp;	/* 0.01 nanoseconds */
> +	unsigned long clk_rate = clk_get_rate(rp->clk);
> +	u32 cyc, ph;
> +
> +	one_cycle = (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC * 100ULL * (1 << div);
> +	do_div(one_cycle, clk_rate);
> +
> +	tmp = period_ns * 100ULL;
> +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> +	cyc = (tmp << RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_SHIFT) & RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK;
> +
> +	tmp = duty_ns * 100ULL;
> +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> +	ph = tmp & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK;
> +
> +	/* Avoid prohibited setting */
> +	if (cyc && ph)
> +		rcar_pwm_write(rp, cyc | ph, RCAR_PWMCNT);

So if a period and duty-cycle are passed in that yield the prohibited
setting the operation will simply be silently ignored?

> +}
> +
> +static int rcar_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> +
> +	return clk_prepare_enable(rp->clk);
> +}
> +
> +static void rcar_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> +
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(rp->clk);
> +}
> +
> +static int rcar_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> +			   int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> +{
> +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	int div;
> +
> +	div = rcar_pwn_get_clock_division(rp, period_ns);

The above three lines can be collapsed into a single one.

> +
> +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +	rcar_pwm_set_counter(rp, div, duty_ns, period_ns);
> +	rcar_pwm_set_clock_control(rp, div);
> +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, 0, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rcar_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> +	u32 pwmcnt;
> +
> +	/* Don't enable the PWM device if CYC0 or PH0 is 0 */
> +	pwmcnt = rcar_pwm_read(rp, RCAR_PWMCNT);
> +	if (!(pwmcnt & RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK) ||
> +	    !(pwmcnt & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_EN0, RCAR_PWMCR_EN0, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void rcar_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> +{
> +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> +
> +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_EN0, 0, RCAR_PWMCR);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct pwm_ops rcar_pwm_ops = {
> +	.request	= rcar_pwm_request,
> +	.free		= rcar_pwm_free,
> +	.config		= rcar_pwm_config,
> +	.enable		= rcar_pwm_enable,
> +	.disable	= rcar_pwm_disable,
> +	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
> +};

No need for this padding. Single spaces around = are good enough.

> +
> +static int rcar_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rcar_pwm;
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	rcar_pwm = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*rcar_pwm), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (rcar_pwm == NULL)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> +	rcar_pwm->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> +	if (IS_ERR(rcar_pwm->base))
> +		return PTR_ERR(rcar_pwm->base);
> +
> +	rcar_pwm->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(rcar_pwm->clk)) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "cannot get clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(rcar_pwm->clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rcar_pwm);
> +
> +	rcar_pwm->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	rcar_pwm->chip.ops = &rcar_pwm_ops;
> +	rcar_pwm->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> +	rcar_pwm->chip.base = -1;
> +	rcar_pwm->chip.npwm = 1;
> +
> +	ret = pwmchip_add(&rcar_pwm->chip);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register PWM chip\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	dev_info(&pdev->dev, "R-Car PWM Timer registered\n");

No need to brag about success. Expect that things will go well and let
users know when they don't. Output error messages, not success messages.

> +	pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rcar_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rcar_pwm = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = pwmchip_remove(&rcar_pwm->chip);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);

Perhaps you'd still like to disable runtime PM even if the chip can't be
removed?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id rcar_pwm_of_table[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "renesas,pwm-rcar", },
> +	{ },
> +};
> +
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rcar_pwm_of_table);

No blank line between the above two.

Thierry

Hi Thierry,

Thank you for the review!

> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:06 PM
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 07:57:26PM +0900, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c
> [...]
> > +#define to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip)	container_of(chip, struct rcar_pwm_chip, chip)
> 
> For consistency with other drivers I'd like this to be a static inline
> function.

I got it. I will modify this.

> > +
> > +static void rcar_pwm_write(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, u32 data, u32 reg)
> > +{
> > +	iowrite32(data, rp->base + reg);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u32 rcar_pwm_read(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, u32 reg)
> > +{
> > +	return ioread32(rp->base + reg);
> > +}
> 
> ioread*() and iowrite*() are to be used for devices that can be on a
> memory-mapped bus or an I/O mapped bus. I suspect that this particular
> IP block doesn't fall into that category, so it should be using the
> regular readl()/writel() instead.

I will use readl()/writel().

> > +static void rcar_pwm_bit_modify(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp,
> > +				u32 mask, u32 data, u32 reg)
> 
> You should try to fill up lines as much as you can: mask and data should
> still fit on the first line.

I will fix it.

> > +{
> > +	u32 val = rcar_pwm_read(rp, reg);
> > +
> > +	val &= ~mask;
> > +	val |= data & mask;
> > +	rcar_pwm_write(rp, val, reg);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rcar_pwn_get_clock_division(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp,
> 
> Typo: "pwn" -> "pwm"

Oops, I will fix it.

> > +				       int period_ns)
> > +{
> > +	int div;
> 
> Perhaps make this unsigned int?

I will use unsigned int.

> > +	unsigned long clk_rate = clk_get_rate(rp->clk);
> > +	unsigned long long max;	/* max cycle / nanoseconds */
> 
> I think you want to check for clk_rate == 0 here and return an error.
> Otherwise the do_div() call below may try to divide by 0.

I will add a code to aboid dividing by 0.

> > +	for (div = 0; div <= RCAR_PWM_MAX_DIVISION; div++) {
> > +		max = (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC * RCAR_PWM_MAX_CYCLE *
> > +			(1 << div);
> > +		do_div(max, clk_rate);
> > +		if (period_ns < max)
> > +			break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return div;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void rcar_pwm_set_clock_control(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, int div)
> > +{
> > +	u32 val = rcar_pwm_read(rp, RCAR_PWMCR);
> > +
> > +	if (div > RCAR_PWM_MAX_DIVISION)
> > +		return;
> 
> Shouldn't you return an error here (and propagate it later on) if an
> invalid value is passed in? Or perhaps even avoid calling this function
> with an invalid value in the first place? As it is, you're silently
> ignoring cases where an invalid value is being passed in. That'll leave
> anybody working with this driver completely puzzled when it doesn't
> behave the way they expect it too. And it gives users no indication
> about what went wrong.

I will add a code to return an error here.

> > +
> > +	val &= ~(RCAR_PWMCR_CCMD | RCAR_PWMCR_CC0_MASK);
> > +	if (div & 1)
> > +		val |= RCAR_PWMCR_CCMD;
> > +	div >>= 1;
> > +	val |= div << RCAR_PWMCR_CC0_SHIFT;
> > +	rcar_pwm_write(rp, val, RCAR_PWMCR);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void rcar_pwm_set_counter(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, int div,
> > +				 int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long long one_cycle, tmp;	/* 0.01 nanoseconds */
> > +	unsigned long clk_rate = clk_get_rate(rp->clk);
> > +	u32 cyc, ph;
> > +
> > +	one_cycle = (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC * 100ULL * (1 << div);
> > +	do_div(one_cycle, clk_rate);
> > +
> > +	tmp = period_ns * 100ULL;
> > +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> > +	cyc = (tmp << RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_SHIFT) & RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK;
> > +
> > +	tmp = duty_ns * 100ULL;
> > +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> > +	ph = tmp & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK;
> > +
> > +	/* Avoid prohibited setting */
> > +	if (cyc && ph)
> > +		rcar_pwm_write(rp, cyc | ph, RCAR_PWMCNT);
> 
> So if a period and duty-cycle are passed in that yield the prohibited
> setting the operation will simply be silently ignored?

Yes, to update values of pwm->duty_cycle and ->period by pwm_config(),
this code will be silently ignored.

> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rcar_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +
> > +	return clk_prepare_enable(rp->clk);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void rcar_pwm_free(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +
> > +	clk_disable_unprepare(rp->clk);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rcar_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > +			   int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +	int div;
> > +
> > +	div = rcar_pwn_get_clock_division(rp, period_ns);
> 
> The above three lines can be collapsed into a single one.

I will fix this.

> > +
> > +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, RCAR_PWMCR);
> > +	rcar_pwm_set_counter(rp, div, duty_ns, period_ns);
> > +	rcar_pwm_set_clock_control(rp, div);
> > +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_SYNC, 0, RCAR_PWMCR);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rcar_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +	u32 pwmcnt;
> > +
> > +	/* Don't enable the PWM device if CYC0 or PH0 is 0 */
> > +	pwmcnt = rcar_pwm_read(rp, RCAR_PWMCNT);
> > +	if (!(pwmcnt & RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK) ||
> > +	    !(pwmcnt & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_EN0, RCAR_PWMCR_EN0, RCAR_PWMCR);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void rcar_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp = to_rcar_pwm_chip(chip);
> > +
> > +	rcar_pwm_bit_modify(rp, RCAR_PWMCR_EN0, 0, RCAR_PWMCR);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct pwm_ops rcar_pwm_ops = {
> > +	.request	= rcar_pwm_request,
> > +	.free		= rcar_pwm_free,
> > +	.config		= rcar_pwm_config,
> > +	.enable		= rcar_pwm_enable,
> > +	.disable	= rcar_pwm_disable,
> > +	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
> > +};
> 
> No need for this padding. Single spaces around = are good enough.

I got it. I will fix it.

> > +
> > +static int rcar_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rcar_pwm;
> > +	struct resource *res;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	rcar_pwm = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*rcar_pwm), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (rcar_pwm == NULL)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > +	rcar_pwm->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(rcar_pwm->base))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(rcar_pwm->base);
> > +
> > +	rcar_pwm->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(rcar_pwm->clk)) {
> > +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "cannot get clock\n");
> > +		return PTR_ERR(rcar_pwm->clk);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rcar_pwm);
> > +
> > +	rcar_pwm->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +	rcar_pwm->chip.ops = &rcar_pwm_ops;
> > +	rcar_pwm->chip.of_xlate = of_pwm_xlate_with_flags;
> > +	rcar_pwm->chip.base = -1;
> > +	rcar_pwm->chip.npwm = 1;
> > +
> > +	ret = pwmchip_add(&rcar_pwm->chip);
> > +	if (ret < 0) {
> > +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register PWM chip\n");
> > +		return ret;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	dev_info(&pdev->dev, "R-Car PWM Timer registered\n");
> 
> No need to brag about success. Expect that things will go well and let
> users know when they don't. Output error messages, not success messages.

I got it. I will remove this message.

> > +	pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rcar_pwm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct rcar_pwm_chip *rcar_pwm = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = pwmchip_remove(&rcar_pwm->chip);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> 
> Perhaps you'd still like to disable runtime PM even if the chip can't be
> removed?

Thank you for the point. I will fix this.

> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id rcar_pwm_of_table[] = {
> > +	{ .compatible = "renesas,pwm-rcar", },
> > +	{ },
> > +};
> > +
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rcar_pwm_of_table);
> 
> No blank line between the above two.

I will remove the blank line.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> Thierry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:48:00AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
[...]
> > > +static void rcar_pwm_set_counter(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, int div,
> > > +				 int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned long long one_cycle, tmp;	/* 0.01 nanoseconds */
> > > +	unsigned long clk_rate = clk_get_rate(rp->clk);
> > > +	u32 cyc, ph;
> > > +
> > > +	one_cycle = (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC * 100ULL * (1 << div);
> > > +	do_div(one_cycle, clk_rate);
> > > +
> > > +	tmp = period_ns * 100ULL;
> > > +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> > > +	cyc = (tmp << RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_SHIFT) & RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK;
> > > +
> > > +	tmp = duty_ns * 100ULL;
> > > +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> > > +	ph = tmp & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Avoid prohibited setting */
> > > +	if (cyc && ph)
> > > +		rcar_pwm_write(rp, cyc | ph, RCAR_PWMCNT);
> > 
> > So if a period and duty-cycle are passed in that yield the prohibited
> > setting the operation will simply be silently ignored?
> 
> Yes, to update values of pwm->duty_cycle and ->period by pwm_config(),
> this code will be silently ignored.

That's not right. If someone passes in invalid values you should report
an error.

Also, are you sure the check is correct? The current check:

	if (cyc && ph)

is the same as

	if (cyc != 0 && ph != 0)

which means that you will never be able to set a zero duty cycle. Is
that really what you want here?

Thierry

Hi Thierry,

> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:12 PM
> 
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:48:00AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> [...]
> > > > +static void rcar_pwm_set_counter(struct rcar_pwm_chip *rp, int div,
> > > > +				 int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	unsigned long long one_cycle, tmp;	/* 0.01 nanoseconds */
> > > > +	unsigned long clk_rate = clk_get_rate(rp->clk);
> > > > +	u32 cyc, ph;
> > > > +
> > > > +	one_cycle = (unsigned long long)NSEC_PER_SEC * 100ULL * (1 << div);
> > > > +	do_div(one_cycle, clk_rate);
> > > > +
> > > > +	tmp = period_ns * 100ULL;
> > > > +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> > > > +	cyc = (tmp << RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_SHIFT) & RCAR_PWMCNT_CYC0_MASK;
> > > > +
> > > > +	tmp = duty_ns * 100ULL;
> > > > +	do_div(tmp, one_cycle);
> > > > +	ph = tmp & RCAR_PWMCNT_PH0_MASK;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Avoid prohibited setting */
> > > > +	if (cyc && ph)
> > > > +		rcar_pwm_write(rp, cyc | ph, RCAR_PWMCNT);
> > >
> > > So if a period and duty-cycle are passed in that yield the prohibited
> > > setting the operation will simply be silently ignored?
> >
> > Yes, to update values of pwm->duty_cycle and ->period by pwm_config(),
> > this code will be silently ignored.
> 
> That's not right. If someone passes in invalid values you should report
> an error.

Thank you for the comment.
After I sent the previous email, I was also confusing this behavior.
So, I fixed it in v5 patch.
(In other words, if the PWM is enabled and a user input invalid values,
 this driver will report an error.)

I'm sorry, I should have explained that in this email thread.

> Also, are you sure the check is correct? The current check:
> 
> 	if (cyc && ph)
> 
> is the same as
> 
> 	if (cyc != 0 && ph != 0)
> 
> which means that you will never be able to set a zero duty cycle. Is
> that really what you want here?

Yes, I really want to avoid to set a zero duty cycle because
the PWM doesn't accept it.
(According to the datasheet, it said "Setting H'000 is prohibited.")

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> Thierry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pwm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html