[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200213210648.GA12663@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:06:49 -0800
From: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND v5 2/2] pwm: core: Convert period and duty cycle to u64
Hi Uwe,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:28:04PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:39:26AM -0800, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:18:02AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:54:08AM -0800, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > > > @@ -305,8 +305,8 @@ struct pwm_chip {
> > > > * @duty_cycle: duty cycle of the PWM signal (in nanoseconds)
> > > > */
> > > > struct pwm_capture {
> > > > - unsigned int period;
> > > > - unsigned int duty_cycle;
> > > > + u64 period;
> > > > + u64 duty_cycle;
> > > > };
> > >
> > > Is this last hunk a separate change?
> > >
> > > Otherwise looks fine.
> >
> > No, this is very much a part of the change and not a separate one.
>
> Not sure we understand each other. I wondered if conversion of the
> pwm_capture stuff should be done separately. (OTOH I wonder if this is
> used at all and already considered deleting it.)
I see. Could you please elaborate on your concerns? I think this hunk's
being in this patch makes sense as duty and period should be converted
to u64 throughout the file in one go.
Also, it looks like pwm_capture is being used by pwm-sti.c and
pwm-stm32.c currently.
Thank you.
Guru Das.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists