Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Date | Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:49:34 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] pwm: clps711x: Use 64-bit division macro |
| |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:30 AM Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:22:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c > > > index 924d39a..ba9500a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c > > > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static void clps711x_pwm_update_val(struct clps711x_chip *priv, u32 n, u32 v) > > > static unsigned int clps711x_get_duty(struct pwm_device *pwm, unsigned int v) > > > { > > > /* Duty cycle 0..15 max */ > > > - return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, pwm->args.period); > > > + return DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, pwm->args.period); > > > } > > > > Is it actually going to exceed U32_MAX? If not, a type cast may be > > more appropriate here than the expensive 64-bit division. > > With the final change in this patch series, the framework will support > periods that exceed U32_MAX. My concern is that using a typecast would > mean that in those cases, this driver will not support > U32_MAX values. > Using DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST makes the driver future proof and able to > handle > U32_MAX values correctly. What do you think?
Ah, so if the period can actually be larger than U32_MAX, you need to handle that case. However, I see that the divident in this code (v * 0xf) is still a 32-bit number, so a correct and efficient implementation could be
if (pwm->args.period > (UINT_MAX / 0xf)) return 0; return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, (u32)pwm->args.period);
Arnd
| |