Re: [PATCH v12 04/10] pwm: max7360: Add MAX7360 PWM support

["Mathieu Dubois-Briand" <mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com>]

On Wed Aug 6, 2025 at 4:02 PM CEST, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:
>> > I think the right thing to do here is:
>> >
>> > 	if (wf->period_length_ns > MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
>> > 		return 1;
>> > 	else
>> > 		return 0;
>> 
>> I can definitely do that, but now I'm a bit confused by the meaning of
>> this return value: is it 0 on success, 1 if some rounding was made,
>> -errno on error? So I believe I should only return 0 if
>> wf->period_length_ns == MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS, no?
>> 
>> Or reading this comment on pwm_round_waveform_might_sleep(), maybe we
>> only have to return 1 if some value is rounded UP. So I believe the test
>> should be (wf->period_length_ns < MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS).
>
> Right,
>
> 	if (wf->period_length_ns < MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
> 		return 1;
> 	else
> 		return 0;
>
> So 0 = request could be matched by only rounding down, 1 = request could
> be matched but rounding up was needed, negative value = error.
>

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

I will fix the return value, and a new version should come soon.

Best regards,
Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Dubois-Briand, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com