On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > 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.) Which patches need to be in the pull-request and which can be hoovered up by their associated subsystems? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
