On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 12:45:24PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 03, 2025 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
From: Nylon Chen nylon.chen@sifive.com
[ Upstream commit 7dbc4432ea6bf9d709391eb57f1e9fb44e99845a ]
The `frac` variable represents the pulse inactive time, and the result of this algorithm is the pulse active time. Therefore, we must reverse the result.
Although the SiFive Reference Manual states "pwms >= pwmcmpX -> HIGH", the hardware behavior is inverted due to a fixed XNOR with 0. As a result, the pwmcmp register actually defines the low (inactive) portion of the pulse.
The reference is SiFive FU740-C000 Manual[0]
Link: https://sifive.cdn.prismic.io/sifive/1a82e600-1f93-4f41-b2d8-86ed8b16acba_fu... [0]
Co-developed-by: Zong Li zong.li@sifive.com Signed-off-by: Zong Li zong.li@sifive.com Co-developed-by: Vincent Chen vincent.chen@sifive.com Signed-off-by: Vincent Chen vincent.chen@sifive.com Signed-off-by: Nylon Chen nylon.chen@sifive.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250529035341.51736-3-nylon.chen@sifive.com Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König ukleinek@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org
Please drop this patch from your queue, see https://lore.kernel.org/all/52ycm5nf2jrxdmdmcijz57xhm2twspjmmiign6zq6rp3d5wt... for the rationale.
Will do.
This is the fourth mail of this type I'm writing. For the future: Is it enough to raise these concerns once only and maybe even make it easier on your end, too? If so, should I better pick the oldest or the newest base version series to reply?
Sorry about that. Just replying to just one of the mails (really doesn't matter which) would work.