Hi Guru, On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:05 PM Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:18:34AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 4:17 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The PWM core will soon change the duty cycle and period of PWMs to 64 > > > bits to allow for a broader range of values. Use a 64-bit format > > > specifier to avoid a warning when that change is made. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- a/drivers/video/fbdev/ssd1307fb.c > > > +++ b/drivers/video/fbdev/ssd1307fb.c > > > @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ static int ssd1307fb_init(struct ssd1307fb_par *par) > > > /* Enable the PWM */ > > > pwm_enable(par->pwm); > > > > > > - dev_dbg(&par->client->dev, "Using PWM%d with a %dns period.\n", > > > + dev_dbg(&par->client->dev, "Using PWM%d with a %lluns period.\n", > > > par->pwm->pwm, pwm_get_period(par->pwm)); > > > } > > > > This change must be done together with changing the return type of > > pwm_get_period(), else you will get a compiler warning, and will print a > > bogus value. > > Hi Geert, > > Yes, this is already being done in the patch series [1] that forms the > base for this specific patch. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/64f9ba1c9d6c49a397f12846493707883cee430f.1591136989.git.gurus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ IC, but the "will soon" suggested otherwise. In any case, not combining both into a single patch causes a bisection regression, regardless of the order in which they are applied. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
