Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:00:10 -0700 | From | Guru Das Srinagesh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 04/11] pwm: clps711x: Use 64-bit division macro |
| |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:49:34AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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))
Shouldn't the if condition be the following? Or am I missing something here?
if (pwm->args.period > (UINT_MAX / (v * 0xf))) ^^^^^^^^^
> return 0; > return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(v * 0xf, (u32)pwm->args.period);
Thank you.
Guru Das.
| |