linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] media: rc: pwm-ir-tx: Switch to atomic PWM API

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH7FV3=7Y7Z0y+Mq5Ak12KDMiZpHQHXGixF_pcrnQkuqCO9kvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 09:43:47 -0300
From:   Maíra Canal <maira.canal@....br>
To:     Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, mchehab@...nel.org,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] media: rc: pwm-ir-tx: Switch to atomic PWM API

[resend it in Plain Text]
Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate that! I'm new at the kernel
and I got a little confused about how to send the new patch. Should I
send a v4 of this patch or just send a new patch fixing this issue?
I'm sorry about the question and thank you for your attention.

> Em qua., 27 de out. de 2021 às 04:32, Sean Young <sean@...s.org> escreveu:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 08:15:52AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:07:19PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
>> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>> > >
>> > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):
>> > >
>> > > >> ERROR: modpost: "__udivdi3" [drivers/media/rc/pwm-ir-tx.ko] undefined!
>> >
>> > This comes from the line:
>> >
>> >       state.duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(pwm_ir->duty_cycle * state.period, 100);
>> >
>> > where DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST expands to a normal division but state.period is
>> > a u64. So this should use DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST I guess.
>>
>> DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST is for dividing a u64 with a u64. We're dividing
>> by 100 here so this is not necessary.
>>
>> It should use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL, however it might be nicer to use:
>>
>>         pwm_set_relative_duty_cycle(&state, pwm_ir->duty_cycle, 100);
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Sean