On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 06:23:48PM +0200, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:
> +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;
> +
> + return 0;
The unconditional return 0 is wrong and testing with PWM_DEBUG enabled
should tell you that.
I think the right thing to do here is:
if (wf->period_length_ns > MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
return 1;
else
return 0;
Otherwise looks fine.
Best regards
Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
