From: Gokul Praveen <g-praveen@ti.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <ukleinek@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael V. Volkmer" <rafael.v.volkmer@gmail.com>,
<j-keerthy@ti.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org>, <n-francis@ti.com>,
<u-kumar1@ti.com>, Gokul Praveen <g-praveen@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: tiehrpwm: Enable EHRPWM controller before setting configuration
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:21:46 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <575bfd8e-9246-4acf-ba76-8d5a84689643@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <hjiyxkzimydqjrtte6r5kemfthwdmhtkysplsptm3npgwqiv4b@d6vlu2fhks37>
Hi Uwe,
On 08/01/26 23:40, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Gokul,
>
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 12:10:35PM +0530, Gokul Praveen wrote:
>> On 08/01/26 01:17, Rafael V. Volkmer wrote:
>>> Thanks for CC'ing me on this thread.
>>>
>>> On 07/01/26 15:21, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>>> adding Rafael to Cc: who sent a patch series for this driver that I
>>>> didn't come around to review yet. Given that neither he nor me noticed
>>>> the problem addressed in this patch I wonder if it applies to all
>>>> hardware variants.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I also didn't observe the issue described here in my testing: duty cycle and
>>> period changes always appeared to take effect as expected.
>>>
>>> My tests were done on an AM623 EVM.
>>>
>>> One possible explanation is that my test flow mostly exercised configuration
>>> while the PWM was already enabled/active, which could mask the effect of a
>>> put_sync/reset happening after configuration.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this is the reason why the configuration was taking effect for you ,
>> Rafael, as the PWM was already enabled when setting the configuration hence
>> masking the effect of a put_sync/reset happening after configuration.
>
> Can you provide a list of commands that show the failure? That would
> result in less guessing for me. My plan is to reproduce the failure
> tomorrow to better understand it on my boneblack.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
Sure Uwe. These are the commands I have tried for PWM signal generation:
cd /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0# echo 0 > export
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0# cd pwm0/
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo 10000000 > period
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo 3000000 > duty_cycle
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo "normal" > polarity
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo 1 > enable
Once these commands were executed, I measured the PWM signal using logic
analyzer and the duty cycle was 100% even though we had set 30% duty
cycle through the sysfs nodes.
However, with the below command sequence, the duty cycle was getting set
properly
cd /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0# echo 0 > export
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0# cd pwm0/
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo 10000000 > period
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo 3000000 > duty_cycle
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo "normal" > polarity
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo 1 > enable
/sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm0# echo 3000000 > duty_cycle
PWM is working only if we re-update the duty cycle after enabling the
module.
If we do not re-update the duty cycle after enabling the module then PWM
signal line is being high(100 % duty) always.
Test Environment: TI J784S4 EVM board.
Best Regards
Gokul Praveen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-09 5:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-07 5:53 Gokul Praveen
2026-01-07 9:51 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-01-07 10:23 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-07 19:47 ` Rafael V. Volkmer
2026-01-08 6:40 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-08 18:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-01-09 5:51 ` Gokul Praveen [this message]
2026-01-09 22:53 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-01-12 5:51 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-12 7:22 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-01-19 15:00 ` Kumar, Udit
2026-01-19 21:33 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-01-20 4:40 ` Kumar, Udit
2026-01-20 5:53 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-20 8:23 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-01-20 8:34 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-15 10:32 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-15 17:17 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2026-01-16 8:41 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-16 9:10 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-19 2:55 ` Rafael V. Volkmer
2026-01-19 6:48 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-15 5:20 ` Kumar, Udit
2026-01-15 6:14 ` Gokul Praveen
2026-01-15 7:46 ` Kumar, Udit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=575bfd8e-9246-4acf-ba76-8d5a84689643@ti.com \
--to=g-praveen@ti.com \
--cc=j-keerthy@ti.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=n-francis@ti.com \
--cc=rafael.v.volkmer@gmail.com \
--cc=u-kumar1@ti.com \
--cc=ukleinek@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®