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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <dbfb17df-90e2-4a7c-9921-9dff5e9382f4@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:53:53 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
 Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
Cc: 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

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).

In the same time the dependency, so the base of this patchset, is
explained in the changelog, exactly in the place where it should be.
Exactly how we all want.

I don't understand what you are poking now. This is exactly the process
how to send an RFC, which you can find in "[PATCH RFC]" subject, based
on some other work in flight/progress.

This is basically an exemplary patch how to do this. You cannot do it
better.

Best regards,
Krzysztof