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 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.