From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2AA26B955; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 13:27:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754314042; cv=none; b=d3+QMeH0GlFJYCn1BNS8j41gDlmvIjX6OsBO4SYZpQnTk+hTx9cx982wi0N+To41QDTS91V9igwtU2UWzk1bSHDq7E40Nw1bA0D6qtL0DwAGIYpJjZMcccYif+ULjpiriFohUTNozBDYMgw6lMuG3G4m1z9sz+ws9s075vCs2dA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754314042; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0HpcXxVZIlcEaVB1NIukOwjT1SSDL2dg2xYzNVFQc9w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=us9KS9EillxyVDCvzyHpulI44/IW75208XZAeLiHJgwuaYrxCf7cknEoB7RMn2UFhN2dvqDInLUuLJez5ZAJKiQVgbeDQP4Atg6q6UQtVDjSO6WTwRP8zcPCKS7bt3w9AIWP8UdLoofsKUc1+G2MGBVYaPH+CmX12+lc38Hi7ZM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=b4B75eB+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="b4B75eB+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E1FBC4CEE7; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 13:27:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754314041; bh=0HpcXxVZIlcEaVB1NIukOwjT1SSDL2dg2xYzNVFQc9w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=b4B75eB+imckBwOM7aVBIuKE25ep/01n0T6A9iHBEI1lGT/k1tOQAiro/SUYXTNOf gF57RRMZmybPQDkZ5zp2UvBQhkwhkOYRdZw490b7RzSCG7Fdr/bOqwZFOVFTNMFs+j H6QJxcKN4tyRNKmqpNBMM2tjUrDPMaQCrnmvNMn1QnBgD4Z9Mh6EP7YSbHRVZ20cyG NYxYtSN8ZlGCat07jXLIhHEJGSZaZgHggmxBGI1ZV1slvsQc8Q6UaKy80RgKrNPsJn snSzkDiBA3lPt4HGaVRkM1HmW+pCwWfB2pXj4TD68CHICZtWRJUmN3sANzvznt4nLZ oIcDJhLyHCc1A== Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:27:19 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Cc: patches@lists.linux.dev, stable@vger.kernel.org, Nylon Chen , Zong Li , Vincent Chen , paul.walmsley@sifive.com, samuel.holland@sifive.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.6 28/59] pwm: sifive: Fix PWM algorithm and clarify inverted compare behavior Message-ID: References: <20250804003413.3622950-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20250804003413.3622950-28-sashal@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 12:45:24PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >Hello, > >On Sun, Aug 03, 2025 at 08:33:42PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> From: Nylon Chen >> >> [ Upstream commit 7dbc4432ea6bf9d709391eb57f1e9fb44e99845a ] >> >> The `frac` variable represents the pulse inactive time, and the result >> of this algorithm is the pulse active time. Therefore, we must reverse >> the result. >> >> Although the SiFive Reference Manual states "pwms >= pwmcmpX -> HIGH", >> the hardware behavior is inverted due to a fixed XNOR with 0. As a result, >> the pwmcmp register actually defines the low (inactive) portion of the pulse. >> >> The reference is SiFive FU740-C000 Manual[0] >> >> Link: https://sifive.cdn.prismic.io/sifive/1a82e600-1f93-4f41-b2d8-86ed8b16acba_fu740-c000-manual-v1p6.pdf [0] >> >> Co-developed-by: Zong Li >> Signed-off-by: Zong Li >> Co-developed-by: Vincent Chen >> Signed-off-by: Vincent Chen >> Signed-off-by: Nylon Chen >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250529035341.51736-3-nylon.chen@sifive.com >> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin >> --- > >Please drop this patch from your queue, see >https://lore.kernel.org/all/52ycm5nf2jrxdmdmcijz57xhm2twspjmmiign6zq6rp3d5wt6t@tq5w47fmiwgg/ >for the rationale. Will do. >This is the fourth mail of this type I'm writing. For the future: Is it >enough to raise these concerns once only and maybe even make it easier >on your end, too? If so, should I better pick the oldest or the newest >base version series to reply? Sorry about that. Just replying to just one of the mails (really doesn't matter which) would work. -- Thanks, Sasha