[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ayuqnx7fjfe3zwicvdbdr3qsgb4w6s2gwjt7r3m5ikzrylmium@hsrxazwelnvp>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 18:48:18 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@...sung.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Fu Wei <wefu@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Drew Fustini <fustini@...nel.org>, Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@...labora.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Elle Rhumsaa <elle@...thered-steel.dev>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/7] Rust Abstractions for PWM subsystem with TH1520
PWM driver
Hello,
my diff on top of your changes looks as follows:
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
index dd6db01832ee..e7f770ecfe84 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
@@ -812,9 +812,8 @@ config PWM_XILINX
will be called pwm-xilinx.
config RUST_PWM_ABSTRACTIONS
- bool "Rust PWM abstractions support"
+ bool
depends on RUST
- depends on PWM=y
help
This option enables the safe Rust abstraction layer for the PWM
subsystem. It provides idiomatic wrappers and traits necessary for
i.e. make RUST_PWM_ABSTRACTIONS invisible, it is only supposed to be
selected and there is little (or even no?) use to enable it without a
selector.
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
index c9fd1d8d17bc..a5666052b7ce 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm_th1520.rs
@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ fn round_waveform_tohw(
wf: &pwm::Waveform,
) -> Result<pwm::RoundedWaveform<Self::WfHw>> {
let data = chip.drvdata();
+ let status = 0;
if wf.period_length_ns == 0 {
dev_dbg!(chip.device(), "Requested period is 0, disabling PWM.\n");
@@ -141,18 +142,13 @@ fn round_waveform_tohw(
if period_cycles == 0 {
dev_dbg!(
chip.device(),
- "Requested period {} ns is too small for clock rate {} Hz, disabling PWM.\n",
+ "Requested period {} ns is too small for clock rate {} Hz, rounding up.\n",
wf.period_length_ns,
rate_hz
);
- return Ok(pwm::RoundedWaveform {
- status: 0,
- hardware_waveform: Th1520WfHw {
- enabled: false,
- ..Default::default()
- },
- });
+ period_cycles = 1;
+ status = 1;
}
let mut duty_cycles = ns_to_cycles(wf.duty_length_ns, rate_hz).min(u64::from(u32::MAX));
i.e. round up for too small period requests ...
@@ -189,7 +185,7 @@ fn round_waveform_tohw(
);
Ok(pwm::RoundedWaveform {
- status: 0,
+ status: status,
hardware_waveform: wfhw,
})
}
... and return 1 then
@@ -355,7 +351,7 @@ fn probe(
"Clock rate {} Hz is too high, not supported.\n",
rate_hz
);
- return Err(ERANGE);
+ return Err(EINVAL);
}
let chip = pwm::Chip::new(
at least pwm-stm32 uses EINVAL. Having said that, I wonder if this check
is sensible here at all. pwm-stm32 does it to ensure that
mul_u64_u64_div_u64() does the right thing, but this exact issue doesn't
exist here.
Otherwise looks fine I think.
Best regards
Uwe
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists