linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 11/11] pwm: core: Convert period and duty cycle to u64

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200522132631.sazoyq2d3krdvg6o@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 15:26:31 +0200
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 11/11] pwm: core: Convert period and duty cycle to u64

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:57:23PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> Because period and duty cycle are defined as ints with units of
> nanoseconds, the maximum time duration that can be set is limited to
> ~2.147 seconds. Change their definitions to u64 in the structs of the
> PWM framework so that higher durations may be set.
> 
> Also use the right format specifiers in debug prints in both core.c as
> well as pwm-stm32-lp.c.
> 
> Cc: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
> Cc: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>
> Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> 
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>

I like this change in general. I didn't check all the prepatory patches
in detail but the few I glanced over looked ok.

I think we have to prepare for having to fix a few fallouts but consider
it ok to expose this in next (but wouldn't send it for 5.8-rc1 yet).

Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |