[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200601113328.oyhxosbtlfeaqytq@holly.lan>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 12:33:28 +0100
From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 04/11] pwm: clps711x: Use 64-bit division macro
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:33:41PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:35:04AM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_args.period's datatype
> > to u64, prepare for this transition by using DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST to
> > handle a 64-bit divisor.
> >
> > Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > 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);
> > }
> >
> > static int clps711x_pwm_request(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm)
> > --
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Could you please review this patch when you get a chance to?
I don't normally review PWM patches... but this no longer has the bug
there was there when I first read this patch.
Daniel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists