On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:57:06PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote:
> @@ -330,14 +345,22 @@ static int pca9685_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> struct pwm_device *pwm,
>
> if (!state->enabled || duty < 1) {
> pca9685_pwm_set_duty(pca, pwm->hwpwm, 0);
> + clear_bit(pwm->hwpwm, pca->prescaler_users);
Hmm, so if "my" channel runs at say
.duty_cycle = 2539520 ns
.period = 5079040 ns
and I call pwm_apply_state(mypwm, { .duty_cycle = 0, .period = 5079040,
enabled = true }); it might happen that another channel modifies the
period and I won't be able to return to the initial setting.
So I think it's sensible to only clear the user bit if the PWM is
disabled, but not if it is configured for duty_cycle = 0.
Does this make sense?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
