linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] pwm: clps711x: Use 64-bit division macro

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200317233003.GA11350@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:30:05 -0700
From:   Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@...ine-koenig.org>,
        Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] pwm: clps711x: Use 64-bit division macro

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:22:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c
> > index 924d39a..ba9500a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c
> > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static void clps711x_pwm_update_val(struct clps711x_chip *priv, u32 n, u32 v)
> >  static unsigned int clps711x_get_duty(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int v)
> >  {
> >         /* Duty cycle 0..15 max */
> > -       return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, pwm->args.period);
> > +       return DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, pwm->args.period);
> >  }
> 
> Is it actually going to exceed U32_MAX? If not, a type cast may be
> more appropriate here than the expensive 64-bit division.

With the final change in this patch series, the framework will support
periods that exceed U32_MAX. My concern is that using a typecast would
mean that in those cases, this driver will not support > U32_MAX values.
Using DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST makes the driver future proof and able to
handle > U32_MAX values correctly. What do you think?

Thank you.

Guru Das.