On 25-03-04 07:29:46, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:52:49PM +0200, Abel Vesa wrote: > > The PWM allow configuring the PWM resolution from 8 bits PWM > > values up to 15 bits values, for the Hi-Res PWMs, and then either > > 6-bit or 9-bit for the normal PWMs. The current implementation loops > > through all possible resolutions (PWM sizes), for the PWM subtype, on top > > of the already existing process of determining the prediv, exponent and > > refclk. > > > > The first and second issues are related to capping the computed PWM > > value. > > I just took a very quick look. I'd say squash the first and second patch > into a single one. Splitting a change that fixes the same issue in the > two branches of an if condition has no benefit. Actually, the first two patches fix different commits. The first patch fixes a commit that is only in linux-next for now, while the second patch fixes a commit that has been merged in 6.4. So they need to be separate patches. > > Other than that this patch set would also benefit from what I wrote in > the review of the other patch you send: Please mention a request where > the result becomes wrong. This considerably simplifies understanding > your changes. Sure. Will describe the 5ms vs 4.26ms period scenario. Hope that's OK. > > Thanks > Uwe Thanks for reviewing, Abel
