Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 06/15] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256

2020-06-09 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 6/9/20 1:29 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:18:31PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and there is a clock-divider which divides this with a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 06/15] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256

2020-06-09 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 08:18:31PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I > noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and > there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128, > and there are 256 du

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 06/15] pwm: crc: Fix period / duty_cycle times being off by a factor of 256

2020-06-07 Thread Hans de Goede
While looking into adding atomic-pwm support to the pwm-crc driver I noticed something odd, there is a PWM_BASE_CLK define of 6 MHz and there is a clock-divider which divides this with a value between 1-128, and there are 256 duty-cycle steps. The pwm-crc code before this commit assumed that a clo