On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 05:28:52PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 03:12:25PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:46:29PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 04:44:09PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 03:26:39PM +0200, Koen Beel wrote: > > > > > I send the patch as attachment for now. > > > > > > > > Fine with me in this case... > > > > > > > > > But I'll have to look into another way of doing this. Corporate mail > > > > > system is adding stupid disclaimers, gmail web ui is not working ok > > > > > and corporate firewalls avoid using a different smtp server... > > > > > > > > Good luck with that! > > > > > > > > About the patch itself: I didn't verify the formulas, but it does solve one > > > > special problem here. Thanks a lot! So: > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > @chris: If Shawn also likes the patch, I think this is a stable candidate. > > > > > > > Thanks for the fixing, Koen. > > > > > > Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Well, maybe not. My colleague complained and I think he is right that we are > > mapping div2 from the range 0 to 256 (inclusive!) to an 8-bit range. This must > > be wrong for one value per se. > > > If you look at the context of the patch, you will find it's 'div2 - 1' > than 'div2' gets written into register. Exactly. The '- 1' is why Koen changed the upper limit from < 256 to <= 256. The lower limit fix is currently 'if (div2 == 0) div2 == 1', which is a 2:1 mapping. Not good, or? -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
