On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Richardson
<jonat...@broadcom.com> wrote:
> Adds debugging info to config function where duty cycle and period
> are calculated and verified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Richardson <jonat...@broadcom.com>
> ---
> drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c
> index c87621f..0ddf19b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-bcm-kona.c
> @@ -138,18 +138,39 @@ static int kona_pwmc_config(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> struct pwm_device *pwm,
> dc = div64_u64(val, div);
>
> /* If duty_ns or period_ns are not achievable then return */
> - if (pc < PERIOD_COUNT_MIN || dc < DUTY_CYCLE_HIGH_MIN)
The original code was based on the SPEAr PWM driver which has a non-zero
PWMDCR_MIN_DUTY such that the second condition here can evaluate to true.
This isn't the case for the Kona PWM where DUTY_CYCLE_HIGH_MIN is zero.
> + if (pc < PERIOD_COUNT_MIN) {
> + dev_warn(chip->dev,
> + "%s: pwm[%d]: period=%d is not achievable,
> pc=%lu, prescale=%lu\n",
> + __func__, chan, period_ns, pc, prescale);
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
Why not just print the minimum allowable period with the provided clock?
I don't think pc and prescale will be particularly helpful to users.
Also, do we really need to print __func__ here?
> +
> + if (dc < DUTY_CYCLE_HIGH_MIN) {
> + if (0 != duty_ns) {
> + dev_warn(chip->dev,
> + "%s: pwm[%d]: duty cycle=%d is not
> achievable, dc=%lu, prescale=%lu\n",
> + __func__, chan, duty_ns, dc,
> prescale);
> + }
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
The above block is unreachable code.
>
> /* If pc and dc are in bounds, the calculation is done */
> if (pc <= PERIOD_COUNT_MAX && dc <= DUTY_CYCLE_HIGH_MAX)
> break;
>
> /* Otherwise, increase prescale and recalculate pc and dc */
> - if (++prescale > PRESCALE_MAX)
> + if (++prescale > PRESCALE_MAX) {
> + dev_warn(chip->dev,
> + "%s: pwm[%d]: Prescale (=%lu) within max
> (=%d) for period=%d and duty cycle=%d is not achievable\n",
> + __func__, chan, prescale, PRESCALE_MAX,
> + period_ns, duty_ns);
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
> }
The user got here because they specified a period larger than the maximum
supported so why not tell them largest value that can be supported instead
of confusing them with prescale and PRESCALE_MAX?
>
> + dev_dbg(chip->dev, "pwm[%d]: period=%lu, duty_high=%lu,
> prescale=%lu\n",
> + chan, pc, dc, prescale);
> +
This could be more clear. It prints pc but calls it period.
> /*
> * Don't apply settings if disabled. The period and duty cycle are
> * always calculated above to ensure the new values are
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
