linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] leds: rgb: leds-qcom-lpg: Compute PWM value based on period instead

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

Message-ID: <ovnmhbzwwimil3opuv6e2ayyntlx7upxfkzm5qdfskx2x7hl7x@wmtul33ttow5>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 17:03:07 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, 
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@....qualcomm.com>, 
	Kamal Wadhwa <quic_kamalw@...cinc.com>, Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@....qualcomm.com>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, 
	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, 
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] leds: rgb: leds-qcom-lpg: Compute PWM value based on
 period instead

Hello Krzysztof,

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 10:53:53AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 04/03/2025 07:24, Uwe Kleine-KÃ¶nig wrote:
> > instead which gives you a more exact result. The challenge here however
> > is that the multiplication might overflow. If you know that the result
> > fits into a u64, mul_u64_u64_div_u64() is the function that gets this
> > right for you.
> > 
> >>  	chan->pwm_value = min(val, max);
> >>  }
> >> [...]
> >> ---
> >> base-commit: 0067a4b21c9ab441bbe6bf3635b3ddd21f6ca7c3
> > 
> > My git repo doesn't know that commit. Given that you said your patch
> > bases on that other series, this isn't surprising. Please use a publicly
> > available commit as base parameter, otherwise you (and I) don't benefit
> > from the armada of build bots because they just silently fail to test in
> 
> As you can easily see in the signature, this patchset was generated by
> b4 and such tag was added automatically. No point in stripping it even
> if it is not useful (life, happens).

My request was not about stripping it, but making it useful. I don't
know the b4 patch sending side, but git send-email has the capability to
make it more useful in this scenario. I didn't check, but
`b4 --edit-deps` which Abel mentioned sounds about right.

The relevant documentation for the git side is the paragraph "BASE TREE
INFORMATION" in git-format-patch(1).

Best regards
Uwe

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)