Hello Lee, On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > These two defines have the same purpose and this change doesn't > > introduce any differences in drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.o. > > > > The only difference between the two is that > > > > TIM_DIER_CC_IE(1) == TIM_DIER_CC2IE > > > > while > > > > TIM_DIER_CCxIE(1) == TIM_DIER_CC1IE > > > > . That makes it necessary to have an explicit "+ 1" in the user code, > > but IMHO this is a good thing as this is the code locatation that > > "knows" that for software channel 1 you have to use TIM_DIER_CC2IE > > (because software guys start counting at 0, while the relevant hardware > > designer started at 1). > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Did you drop William's Ack on purpose? Yes, because a) I was unsure what he didn't like about the subject, and (more importantly) b) I split the patch in question. I should have written that in the cover letter, sorry. (Note I only announced to have fixed the subject prefix of the pwm patch. I assume you won't include that in your pull request, but if you do, please do s/-/: / on it. That's another thing I failed with for this series.) Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
