Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pwm: bcm2835: Support apply function for atomic
 configuration
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=c3=b6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     thierry.reding@gmail.com, lee.jones@linaro.org,
        nsaenzjulienne@suse.de, f.fainelli@gmail.com, rjui@broadcom.com,
        sbranden@broadcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        sean@mess.org
References: <202011281128.54eLfMWr-lkp@intel.com>
 <1606564926-19555-1-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <20201129181050.p6rkif5vjoumvafm@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <4683237c-7b40-11ab-b3c0-f94a5dd39b4d@gmx.de>
Date:   Fri, 4 Dec 2020 00:42:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201129181050.p6rkif5vjoumvafm@pengutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


Hi Uwe,

First off, thanks for the review!

On 29.11.20 at 19:10, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:

>
> Changelog between review rounds go to below the tripple-dash below.
>

Right, will do so in the next patch version.

>
> You're storing an unsigned long long (i.e. 64 bits) in an u32. If
> you are sure that this won't discard relevant bits, please explain
> this in a comment for the cursory reader.

What about an extra check then to make sure that the period has not been t=
runcated,
e.g:

	value =3D DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler);

	/* dont accept a period that is too small or has been truncated */
	if ((value < PERIOD_MIN) ||
	    (value !=3D DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->period, scaler)))
		return -EINVAL;


> Also note that round_closed is probably wrong, as .apply() is
> supposed to round down the period to the next achievable period. (But
> fixing this has to do done in a separate patch.)

According to commit 11fc4edc4 rounding to the closest integer has been int=
roduced
to improve precision in case that the pwm controller is used by the pwm-ir=
-tx driver.
I dont know how strong the requirement is to round down the period in appl=
y(), but I
can imagine that this may be a good reason to deviate from this rule.
(CCing Sean Young who introduced DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST)

Regards,
Lino