[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4683237c-7b40-11ab-b3c0-f94a5dd39b4d@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 00:42:15 +0100
From: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com, lee.jones@...aro.org,
nsaenzjulienne@...e.de, f.fainelli@...il.com, rjui@...adcom.com,
sbranden@...adcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sean@...s.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: bcm2835: Support apply function for atomic
configuration
Hi Uwe,
First off, thanks for the review!
On 29.11.20 at 19:10, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>
> Changelog between review rounds go to below the tripple-dash below.
>
Right, will do so in the next patch version.
>
> You're storing an unsigned long long (i.e. 64 bits) in an u32. If
> you are sure that this won't discard relevant bits, please explain
> this in a comment for the cursory reader.
What about an extra check then to make sure that the period has not been truncated,
e.g:
value = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler);
/* dont accept a period that is too small or has been truncated */
if ((value < PERIOD_MIN) ||
(value != DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler)))
return -EINVAL;
> Also note that round_closed is probably wrong, as .apply() is
> supposed to round down the period to the next achievable period. (But
> fixing this has to do done in a separate patch.)
According to commit 11fc4edc4 rounding to the closest integer has been introduced
to improve precision in case that the pwm controller is used by the pwm-ir-tx driver.
I dont know how strong the requirement is to round down the period in apply(), but I
can imagine that this may be a good reason to deviate from this rule.
(CCing Sean Young who introduced DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST)
Regards,
Lino
Powered by blists - more mailing lists