[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DC8YVXKCZAE4.5QJM9MP4HJZ5@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 14:49:10 +0200
From: "Mathieu Dubois-Briand" <mathieu.dubois-briand@...tlin.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
Cc: "Lee Jones" <lee@...nel.org>, "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "Conor Dooley"
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, "Kamel Bouhara" <kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com>, "Linus
Walleij" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, "Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@...ev.pl>,
"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, "Michael Walle"
<mwalle@...nel.org>, "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>, "Greg
Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
Grégory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>, "Thomas
Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, "Andy Shevchenko"
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 04/10] pwm: max7360: Add MAX7360 PWM support
On Mon Aug 18, 2025 at 11:05 AM CEST, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 12:46:22PM +0200, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:
>> From: Kamel Bouhara <kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com>
>>
>> Add driver for Maxim Integrated MAX7360 PWM controller, supporting up to
>> 8 independent PWM outputs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kamel Bouhara <kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Mathieu Dubois-Briand <mathieu.dubois-briand@...tlin.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Dubois-Briand <mathieu.dubois-briand@...tlin.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> ...
>> +static int max7360_pwm_round_waveform_tohw(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>> + struct pwm_device *pwm,
>> + const struct pwm_waveform *wf,
>> + void *_wfhw)
>> +{
>> + struct max7360_pwm_waveform *wfhw = _wfhw;
>> + u64 duty_steps;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Ignore user provided values for period_length_ns and duty_offset_ns:
>> + * we only support fixed period of MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS and offset of 0.
>> + * Values from 0 to 254 as duty_steps will provide duty cycles of 0/256
>> + * to 254/256, while value 255 will provide a duty cycle of 100%.
>> + */
>> + if (wf->duty_length_ns >= MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS) {
>> + duty_steps = MAX7360_PWM_MAX;
>> + } else {
>> + duty_steps = (u32)wf->duty_length_ns * MAX7360_PWM_STEPS / MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS;
>> + if (duty_steps == MAX7360_PWM_MAX)
>> + duty_steps = MAX7360_PWM_MAX - 1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + wfhw->duty_steps = min(MAX7360_PWM_MAX, duty_steps);
>> + wfhw->enabled = !!wf->period_length_ns;
>> +
>> + if (wf->period_length_ns < MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
>
> I know this code was suggested as is by me, but I think we need:
>
> if (wf->period_length_ns && wf->period_length_ns < MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
>
> here to prevent to trigger a PWM_DEBUG warning. Sorry to spot this only
> now.
>
Right, this does make sense. I will send a new version shortly.
>> + return 1;
>> + else
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
Best regards,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Dubois-Briand, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists