On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 01:57:23PM +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);
duty_steps is never bigger than MAX7360_PWM_MAX, isn't it? Then this can
be simplified to just
wfhw->duty_steps = duty_steps;
Otherwise looks fine to me.
To get this series forward, it's OK for me to apply the series as is via
Lee's MFD tree and cope for this minor optimisation later. So:
Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxx>
Best regards
Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
