Hi Uwe, thanks for the review. On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 10:18 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
[...]
> > + duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->duty_cycle *
> > RPI_PWM_MAX_DUTY,
> > + RPI_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
>
> ... and round down here.
>
> Just to be sure: writing RPI_PWM_MAX_DUTY (i.e. 255) yields 100% duty
> cycle, right?
Yes, at 255 the signal is flat.
> > + else
> > + duty_cycle = RPI_PWM_MAX_DUTY;
> > +
> > + if (duty_cycle == rpipwm->duty_cycle)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + ret = raspberrypi_pwm_set_property(rpipwm->firmware,
> > RPI_PWM_CUR_DUTY_REG,
> > + duty_cycle);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to set duty cycle: %d\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This sets the default duty cycle after resetting the board, we
> > + * updated it every time to mimic Raspberry Pi's downstream's driver
> > + * behaviour.
> > + */
> > + ret = raspberrypi_pwm_set_property(rpipwm->firmware,
> > RPI_PWM_DEF_DUTY_REG,
> > + duty_cycle);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to set default duty cycle: %d\n",
> > ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rpipwm->duty_cycle = duty_cycle;
>
> Please use tabs for indention. (The general hint is to use checkpatch
> which (I hope) tells you about problems like this.)
Sorry for that.
I took note of the rest of comments and will update the code.
Regards,
Nicolas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
