Hello Krzysztof, On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 10:53:53AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 04/03/2025 07:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > instead which gives you a more exact result. The challenge here however > > is that the multiplication might overflow. If you know that the result > > fits into a u64, mul_u64_u64_div_u64() is the function that gets this > > right for you. > > > >> chan->pwm_value = min(val, max); > >> } > >> [...] > >> --- > >> base-commit: 0067a4b21c9ab441bbe6bf3635b3ddd21f6ca7c3 > > > > My git repo doesn't know that commit. Given that you said your patch > > bases on that other series, this isn't surprising. Please use a publicly > > available commit as base parameter, otherwise you (and I) don't benefit > > from the armada of build bots because they just silently fail to test in > > As you can easily see in the signature, this patchset was generated by > b4 and such tag was added automatically. No point in stripping it even > if it is not useful (life, happens). My request was not about stripping it, but making it useful. I don't know the b4 patch sending side, but git send-email has the capability to make it more useful in this scenario. I didn't check, but `b4 --edit-deps` which Abel mentioned sounds about right. The relevant documentation for the git side is the paragraph "BASE TREE INFORMATION" in git-format-patch(1). Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
