[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZnPvW6Zx69wVjNRS@ishi>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:59:07 +0900
From: William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>,
Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...s.st.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thorsten Scherer <T.Scherer@...elmann.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] counter: stm32-timer-cnt: Use TIM_DIER_CCxIE(x)
instead of TIM_DIER_CCxIE(x)
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>
> > These two defines have the same purpose and this change doesn't
> > introduce any differences in drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.o.
> >
> > The only difference between the two is that
> >
> > TIM_DIER_CC_IE(1) == TIM_DIER_CC2IE
> >
> > while
> >
> > TIM_DIER_CCxIE(1) == TIM_DIER_CC1IE
> >
> > . That makes it necessary to have an explicit "+ 1" in the user code,
> > but IMHO this is a good thing as this is the code locatation that
> > "knows" that for software channel 1 you have to use TIM_DIER_CC2IE
> > (because software guys start counting at 0, while the relevant hardware
> > designer started at 1).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Did you drop William's Ack on purpose?
>
> --
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]
No problem, here it is again for the sake of the LKML scraper tools:
Acked-by: William Breathitt Gray <wbg@...nel.org>
Lee, do you prefer taking this patchset through your tree?
William Breathitt Gray
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists