drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
The modulo register defines the period of the edge-aligned PWM mode
(which is the only mode implemented). The reference manual states:
"The EPWM period is determined by (MOD + 0001h) ..." So the value that
is written to the MOD register must therefore be one less than the
calculated period length.
A correct MODULO value is particularly relevant if the PWM has to output
a high frequency due to a low period value.
Fixes: 738a1cfec2ed ("pwm: Add i.MX TPM PWM driver support")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Erik Schumacher <erik.schumacher@iris-sensing.com>
---
v2:
- Add Fixes: and Cc: tags
drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
index 96ea343856f0..a05b66ffe208 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int pwm_imx_tpm_round_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
p->prescale = prescale;
period_count = (clock_unit + ((1 << prescale) >> 1)) >> prescale;
- p->mod = period_count;
+ p->mod = period_count - 1;
/* calculate real period HW can support */
tmp = (u64)period_count << prescale;
--
2.47.0
Hello,
[dropping anson.huang@nxp.com from Cc]
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 06:41:07AM +0000, Erik Schumacher wrote:
> The modulo register defines the period of the edge-aligned PWM mode
> (which is the only mode implemented). The reference manual states:
> "The EPWM period is determined by (MOD + 0001h) ..." So the value that
> is written to the MOD register must therefore be one less than the
> calculated period length.
> A correct MODULO value is particularly relevant if the PWM has to output
> a high frequency due to a low period value.
>
> Fixes: 738a1cfec2ed ("pwm: Add i.MX TPM PWM driver support")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Erik Schumacher <erik.schumacher@iris-sensing.com>
No empty line between these trailer lines please.
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> index 96ea343856f0..a05b66ffe208 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int pwm_imx_tpm_round_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> p->prescale = prescale;
>
> period_count = (clock_unit + ((1 << prescale) >> 1)) >> prescale;
> - p->mod = period_count;
> + p->mod = period_count - 1;
This looks bogus if period_count is 0.
Best regards
Uwe
Hello,
thanks for the review.
Am Donnerstag, dem 24.10.2024 um 23:01 +0200 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> Hello,
>
> [dropping anson.huang@nxp.com from Cc]
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 06:41:07AM +0000, Erik Schumacher wrote:
> > The modulo register defines the period of the edge-aligned PWM mode
> > (which is the only mode implemented). The reference manual states:
> > "The EPWM period is determined by (MOD + 0001h) ..." So the value that
> > is written to the MOD register must therefore be one less than the
> > calculated period length.
> > A correct MODULO value is particularly relevant if the PWM has to output
> > a high frequency due to a low period value.
> >
> > Fixes: 738a1cfec2ed ("pwm: Add i.MX TPM PWM driver support")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Erik Schumacher <erik.schumacher@iris-sensing.com>
>
> No empty line between these trailer lines please.
Noted for v3!
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> > index 96ea343856f0..a05b66ffe208 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c
> > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static int pwm_imx_tpm_round_state(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> > p->prescale = prescale;
> >
> > period_count = (clock_unit + ((1 << prescale) >> 1)) >> prescale;
> > - p->mod = period_count;
> > + p->mod = period_count - 1;
>
> This looks bogus if period_count is 0.
>
That's true. It can only be 0 if someone is requesting a period from
the PWM that is lower than the period of the clock feeding the PWM.
But, it would be an invalid config and returning -EINVAL there seems to
be the right thing (instead of underflowing the integer). I will add
such a check.
> Best regards
> Uwe
Kind regards
Erik
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.