dri-devel.lists.freedesktop.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
@ 2020-04-22  2:57 Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
                   ` (4 more replies)
  0 siblings, 5 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guru Das Srinagesh @ 2020-04-22  2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-pwm
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Guru Das Srinagesh, Daniel Thompson,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Alexander Shiyan, Lee Jones, Chen-Yu Tsai,
	NXP Linux Team, Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer,
	Guenter Roeck, linux-media, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue,
	Arnd Bergmann, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown,
	Paul Walmsley, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner,
	Fabrice Gasnier, Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal,
	linux-hwmon, Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd,
	Jingoo Han, linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt,
	Dan Carpenter, Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

[REQUEST]

Would it be possible for the patches that have already received Acked-by's in
this series to be accepted and applied to the tree? I lost an Acked-by (in
intel-panel.c) because it had a merge conflict with a new change that came in
after I rebased to tip. I wasn't sure earlier about accepting single patches as
opposed to the entire series en masse, but this event has got me thinking.

[COVER LETTER]

Because period and duty cycle are defined in the PWM framework structs as ints
with units of nanoseconds, the maximum time duration that can be set is limited
to ~2.147 seconds. Consequently, applications desiring to set greater time
periods via the PWM framework are not be able to do so - like, for instance,
causing an LED to blink at an interval of 5 seconds.

Redefining the period and duty cycle struct members in the core PWM framework
structs as u64 values will enable larger time durations to be set and solve
this problem. Such a change to the framework mandates that drivers using these
struct members (and corresponding helper functions) also be modified correctly
in order to prevent compilation errors.

This patch series introduces the changes to all the drivers first, followed by
the framework change at the very end so that when the latter is applied, all
the drivers are in good shape and there are no compilation errors.

Changes from v12:
  - Rebased to tip of for-next
  - Collected Acked-by for sun4i
  - Reworked patch for intel-panel.c due to rebase, dropped Jani's Acked-by as
    a result

Changes from v11:
  - Rebased to tip of for-next.
  - Collected "Acked-by:" for v7 (unchanged) of pwm: sifive: [4]
  - Squished stm32-lp.c change with final patch in series
  - sun4i: Used nsecs_to_jiffies()
  - imx27: Added overflow handling logic
  - clps711x: Corrected the if condition for skipping the division
  - clk: pwm: Reverted to v8 version, added check to prevent division-by-zero

Changes from v10:
  - Carefully added back all the "Reviewed-by: " and "Acked-by: " tags received
    so far that had gotten missed in v9. No other changes.

Changes from v9:
  - Gathered the received "Reviewed-by: " tag
  - Added back the clk-pwm.c patch because kbuild test robot complained [3]
    and addressed received review comments.
  - clps711x: Addressed review comments.

Changes from v8:
  - Gathered all received "Acked-by: " and "Reviewed-by: " tags
  - Dropped patch to clk-pwm.c for reasons mentiond in [2]
  - Expanded audience of unreviewed patches

Changes from v7:
  - Changed commit messages of all patches to be brief and to the point.
  - Added explanation of change in cover letter.
  - Dropped change to pwm-sti.c as upon review it was unnecessary as struct
    pwm_capture is not being modified in the PWM core.

Changes from v6:
  - Split out the driver changes out into separate patches, one patch per file
    for ease of reviewing.

Changes from v5:
  - Dropped the conversion of struct pwm_capture to u64 for reasons mentioned
    in https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11541.html

Changes from v4:
  - Split the patch into two: one for changes to the drivers, and the actual
    switch to u64 for ease of reverting should the need arise.
  - Re-examined the patch and made the following corrections:
      * intel_panel.c:
	DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP -> DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL (as only the numerator would be
	64-bit in this case).
      * pwm-sti.c:
	do_div -> div_u64 (do_div is optimized only for x86 architectures, and
	div_u64's comment block suggests to use this as much as possible).

Changes from v3:
  - Rebased to current tip of for-next.

Changes from v2:
  - Fixed %u -> %llu in a dev_dbg in pwm-stm32-lp.c, thanks to kbuild test robot
  - Added a couple of fixes to pwm-imx-tpm.c and pwm-sifive.c

Changes from v1:
  - Fixed compilation errors seen when compiling for different archs.

v1:
  - Reworked the change pushed upstream earlier [1] so as to not add an
    extension to an obsolete API. With this change, pwm_ops->apply() can be
    used to set pwm_state parameters as usual.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190916140048.GB7488@ulmo/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200312190859.GA19605@codeaurora.org/
[3] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11906.html
[4] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11986.html

To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@mail.ru>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
Cc: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Kamil Debski <kamil@wypas.org>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
Cc: Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Yash Shah <yash.shah@sifive.com>

Guru Das Srinagesh (11):
  drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro
  hwmon: pwm-fan: Use 64-bit division macro
  ir-rx51: Use 64-bit division macro
  pwm: clps711x: Cast period to u32 before use as divisor
  pwm: pwm-imx-tpm: Use 64-bit division macro
  pwm: imx27: Use 64-bit division macro and function
  pwm: sifive: Use 64-bit division macro
  pwm: sun4i: Use nsecs_to_jiffies to avoid a division
  backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function
  clk: pwm: Use 64-bit division function
  pwm: core: Convert period and duty cycle to u64

 drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c                      |  7 +++-
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c |  2 +-
 drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c                    |  2 +-
 drivers/media/rc/ir-rx51.c                 |  3 +-
 drivers/pwm/core.c                         | 14 ++++----
 drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c                 |  5 ++-
 drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c                  |  2 +-
 drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c                    | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c                   |  2 +-
 drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c                 |  2 +-
 drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c                    |  2 +-
 drivers/pwm/sysfs.c                        |  8 ++---
 drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c           |  3 +-
 include/linux/pwm.h                        | 12 +++----
 14 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro
  2020-04-22  2:57 [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-22  2:57 ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-24  6:17   ` Jani Nikula
  2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 09/11] backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function Guru Das Srinagesh
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guru Das Srinagesh @ 2020-04-22  2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-pwm
  Cc: Guru Das Srinagesh, David Collins, David Airlie, intel-gfx,
	linux-kernel, dri-devel, Chris Wilson, Thierry Reding,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy

Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_state.duty_cycle's
datatype to u64, prepare for this transition by using DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL
to handle a 64-bit dividend.

To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
index 276f438..81547a0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
@@ -1920,7 +1920,7 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
 		return retval;
 	}
 
-	level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
+	level = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
 			     CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
 	panel->backlight.level =
 		intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v13 09/11] backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function
  2020-04-22  2:57 [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-22  2:57 ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-05-26  7:00   ` Lee Jones
  2020-04-22  8:49 ` [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Daniel Thompson
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guru Das Srinagesh @ 2020-04-22  2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-pwm
  Cc: Guru Das Srinagesh, Daniel Thompson, David Collins,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, Jingoo Han, linux-kernel, dri-devel,
	Thierry Reding, linux-fbdev, Uwe Kleine-König,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Lee Jones

Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_state.period's datatype
to u64, prepare for this transition by using div_u64 to handle a 64-bit
dividend instead of a straight division operation.

Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org

Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
index 82b8d75..464baad 100644
--- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
+++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
@@ -606,7 +606,8 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		pb->scale = data->max_brightness;
 	}
 
-	pb->lth_brightness = data->lth_brightness * (state.period / pb->scale);
+	pb->lth_brightness = data->lth_brightness * (div_u64(state.period,
+				pb->scale));
 
 	props.type = BACKLIGHT_RAW;
 	props.max_brightness = data->max_brightness;
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-22  2:57 [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 09/11] backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-22  8:49 ` Daniel Thompson
  2020-04-22 23:37   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-23 11:48 ` Lee Jones
  2020-04-24  6:46 ` Lee Jones
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Thompson @ 2020-04-22  8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Alexander Shiyan, Lee Jones,
	Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team, Uwe Kleine-König,
	Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media, linux-pwm,
	Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:57:12PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> [REQUEST]
> 
> Would it be possible for the patches that have already received Acked-by's in
> this series to be accepted and applied to the tree? I lost an Acked-by (in
> intel-panel.c) because it had a merge conflict with a new change that came in
> after I rebased to tip. I wasn't sure earlier about accepting single patches as
> opposed to the entire series en masse, but this event has got me thinking.

Has there been a positive maintainer review of patch 11 at any point in
the thread (most of the people you are asking to commit patches have
not been able to see the discussion about the actual feature these
patches are preparing for)?


Daniel.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-22  8:49 ` [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Daniel Thompson
@ 2020-04-22 23:37   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-23  9:20     ` Daniel Thompson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guru Das Srinagesh @ 2020-04-22 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Thompson
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Alexander Shiyan, Lee Jones,
	Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team, Uwe Kleine-König,
	Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media, linux-pwm,
	Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:49:34AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:57:12PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > [REQUEST]
> > 
> > Would it be possible for the patches that have already received Acked-by's in
> > this series to be accepted and applied to the tree? I lost an Acked-by (in
> > intel-panel.c) because it had a merge conflict with a new change that came in
> > after I rebased to tip. I wasn't sure earlier about accepting single patches as
> > opposed to the entire series en masse, but this event has got me thinking.
> 
> Has there been a positive maintainer review of patch 11 at any point in
> the thread (most of the people you are asking to commit patches have
> not been able to see the discussion about the actual feature these
> patches are preparing for)?

Yes. Uwe had this to say [1] about a previous patchset (v5) of patch 11
which is essentially unchanged in this patchset save the dropping of the
pwm_capture change.

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11536.html

Thank you.

Guru Das.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-22 23:37   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-23  9:20     ` Daniel Thompson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Thompson @ 2020-04-23  9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Alexander Shiyan, Lee Jones,
	Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team, Uwe Kleine-König,
	Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media, linux-pwm,
	Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 04:37:55PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:49:34AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:57:12PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > > [REQUEST]
> > > 
> > > Would it be possible for the patches that have already received Acked-by's in
> > > this series to be accepted and applied to the tree? I lost an Acked-by (in
> > > intel-panel.c) because it had a merge conflict with a new change that came in
> > > after I rebased to tip. I wasn't sure earlier about accepting single patches as
> > > opposed to the entire series en masse, but this event has got me thinking.
> > 
> > Has there been a positive maintainer review of patch 11 at any point in
> > the thread (most of the people you are asking to commit patches have
> > not been able to see the discussion about the actual feature these
> > patches are preparing for)?
> 
> Yes. Uwe had this to say [1] about a previous patchset (v5) of patch 11
> which is essentially unchanged in this patchset save the dropping of the
> pwm_capture change.
> 
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11536.html

Excellent. Thanks!


Daniel.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-22  2:57 [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Guru Das Srinagesh
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-04-22  8:49 ` [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Daniel Thompson
@ 2020-04-23 11:48 ` Lee Jones
  2020-04-23 21:53   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-24  6:46 ` Lee Jones
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2020-04-23 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Daniel Thompson, Mauro Carvalho Chehab,
	Alexander Shiyan, Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media,
	linux-pwm, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> [REQUEST]
> 
> Would it be possible for the patches that have already received Acked-by's in
> this series to be accepted and applied to the tree? I lost an Acked-by (in
> intel-panel.c) because it had a merge conflict with a new change that came in
> after I rebased to tip. I wasn't sure earlier about accepting single patches as
> opposed to the entire series en masse, but this event has got me thinking.
> 
> [COVER LETTER]
> 
> Because period and duty cycle are defined in the PWM framework structs as ints
> with units of nanoseconds, the maximum time duration that can be set is limited
> to ~2.147 seconds. Consequently, applications desiring to set greater time
> periods via the PWM framework are not be able to do so - like, for instance,
> causing an LED to blink at an interval of 5 seconds.
> 
> Redefining the period and duty cycle struct members in the core PWM framework
> structs as u64 values will enable larger time durations to be set and solve
> this problem. Such a change to the framework mandates that drivers using these
> struct members (and corresponding helper functions) also be modified correctly
> in order to prevent compilation errors.
> 
> This patch series introduces the changes to all the drivers first, followed by
> the framework change at the very end so that when the latter is applied, all
> the drivers are in good shape and there are no compilation errors.

What's the merge plan for this set?

FYI, it's better to send all patches to all parties.  That way
maintainers and interested persons can follow the discussion and
progress, or lack there of.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-23 11:48 ` Lee Jones
@ 2020-04-23 21:53   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-24  6:43     ` Lee Jones
  2020-04-24  6:45     ` Lee Jones
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guru Das Srinagesh @ 2020-04-23 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lee Jones
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Daniel Thompson, Mauro Carvalho Chehab,
	Alexander Shiyan, Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media,
	linux-pwm, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:48:57PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> What's the merge plan for this set?

I'm not sure what you mean. My assumption is that first all the patches
need to get an Acked-by and only then will the series get applied by
Thierry... Could Thierry or Uwe weigh in on this point please?

> FYI, it's better to send all patches to all parties.  That way
> maintainers and interested persons can follow the discussion and
> progress, or lack there of.

Something I noticed with adding all the various mailing lists to the CC
list for this cover letter is that it is causing this cover letter email
and all its replies to not be archived properly on spinics or lore -
it's probably getting rejected by email filters somehow. Compare with
v12 [1] where I'd pruned the list considerably as an experiment - that
got archived correctly.

Any ideas on what might be going wrong? Once I fix this I can add all
parties to all patches knowing that there would be no issues in mail
archival.

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg12131.html

Thank you.

Guru Das.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro
  2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-24  6:17   ` Jani Nikula
  2020-04-24 22:17     ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jani Nikula @ 2020-04-24  6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh, linux-pwm
  Cc: Guru Das Srinagesh, David Collins, David Airlie, intel-gfx,
	linux-kernel, dri-devel, Chris Wilson, Thierry Reding,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Subbaraman Narayanamurthy

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_state.duty_cycle's
> datatype to u64, prepare for this transition by using DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL
> to handle a 64-bit dividend.
>
> To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>

Superfluous blank line.

Anyway, please preserve the existing acks and reviews [1] so people
don't have to do it again.

BR,
Jani.

[1] http://lore.kernel.org/r/87h7yleb0i.fsf@intel.com

> Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
> index 276f438..81547a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c
> @@ -1920,7 +1920,7 @@ static int pwm_setup_backlight(struct intel_connector *connector,
>  		return retval;
>  	}
>  
> -	level = DIV_ROUND_UP(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
> +	level = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(pwm_get_duty_cycle(panel->backlight.pwm) * 100,
>  			     CRC_PMIC_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
>  	panel->backlight.level =
>  		intel_panel_compute_brightness(connector, level);

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-23 21:53   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-24  6:43     ` Lee Jones
  2020-04-24 22:14       ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-24  6:45     ` Lee Jones
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2020-04-24  6:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Daniel Thompson, Mauro Carvalho Chehab,
	Alexander Shiyan, Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media,
	linux-pwm, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:48:57PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > What's the merge plan for this set?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. My assumption is that first all the patches
> need to get an Acked-by and only then will the series get applied by
> Thierry... Could Thierry or Uwe weigh in on this point please?
> 
> > FYI, it's better to send all patches to all parties.  That way
> > maintainers and interested persons can follow the discussion and
> > progress, or lack there of.
> 
> Something I noticed with adding all the various mailing lists to the CC
> list for this cover letter is that it is causing this cover letter email
> and all its replies to not be archived properly on spinics or lore -
> it's probably getting rejected by email filters somehow. Compare with
> v12 [1] where I'd pruned the list considerably as an experiment - that
> got archived correctly.
> 
> Any ideas on what might be going wrong? Once I fix this I can add all
> parties to all patches knowing that there would be no issues in mail
> archival.

A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against
things like flooding and spamming.  One of those protections is a
check for "Too many recipients to the message".  Most of the time this
simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval,
but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration.

The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large.
Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and
contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl?  If so, consider pruning
that a little.  Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent
changes to a file.  As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend
to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X
years ago.  Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first
instance and see how far that takes you.

If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe
just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every
ML.  It's still much more useful for the correct people to have
visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times.

> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg12131.html
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Guru Das.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-23 21:53   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-24  6:43     ` Lee Jones
@ 2020-04-24  6:45     ` Lee Jones
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2020-04-24  6:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Daniel Thompson, Mauro Carvalho Chehab,
	Alexander Shiyan, Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media,
	linux-pwm, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:48:57PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > What's the merge plan for this set?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean. My assumption is that first all the patches
> need to get an Acked-by and only then will the series get applied by
> Thierry... Could Thierry or Uwe weigh in on this point please?

Yes, that is the merge plan. :)

Whoever takes this will have to offer out an immutable PR.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-22  2:57 [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Guru Das Srinagesh
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-04-23 11:48 ` Lee Jones
@ 2020-04-24  6:46 ` Lee Jones
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2020-04-24  6:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Daniel Thompson, Mauro Carvalho Chehab,
	Alexander Shiyan, Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media,
	linux-pwm, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> [REQUEST]
> 
> Would it be possible for the patches that have already received Acked-by's in
> this series to be accepted and applied to the tree? I lost an Acked-by (in
> intel-panel.c) because it had a merge conflict with a new change that came in
> after I rebased to tip. I wasn't sure earlier about accepting single patches as
> opposed to the entire series en masse, but this event has got me thinking.
> 
> [COVER LETTER]
> 
> Because period and duty cycle are defined in the PWM framework structs as ints
> with units of nanoseconds, the maximum time duration that can be set is limited
> to ~2.147 seconds. Consequently, applications desiring to set greater time
> periods via the PWM framework are not be able to do so - like, for instance,
> causing an LED to blink at an interval of 5 seconds.
> 
> Redefining the period and duty cycle struct members in the core PWM framework
> structs as u64 values will enable larger time durations to be set and solve
> this problem. Such a change to the framework mandates that drivers using these
> struct members (and corresponding helper functions) also be modified correctly
> in order to prevent compilation errors.
> 
> This patch series introduces the changes to all the drivers first, followed by
> the framework change at the very end so that when the latter is applied, all
> the drivers are in good shape and there are no compilation errors.
> 
> Changes from v12:
>   - Rebased to tip of for-next
>   - Collected Acked-by for sun4i
>   - Reworked patch for intel-panel.c due to rebase, dropped Jani's Acked-by as
>     a result
> 
> Changes from v11:
>   - Rebased to tip of for-next.
>   - Collected "Acked-by:" for v7 (unchanged) of pwm: sifive: [4]
>   - Squished stm32-lp.c change with final patch in series
>   - sun4i: Used nsecs_to_jiffies()
>   - imx27: Added overflow handling logic
>   - clps711x: Corrected the if condition for skipping the division
>   - clk: pwm: Reverted to v8 version, added check to prevent division-by-zero
> 
> Changes from v10:
>   - Carefully added back all the "Reviewed-by: " and "Acked-by: " tags received
>     so far that had gotten missed in v9. No other changes.
> 
> Changes from v9:
>   - Gathered the received "Reviewed-by: " tag
>   - Added back the clk-pwm.c patch because kbuild test robot complained [3]
>     and addressed received review comments.
>   - clps711x: Addressed review comments.
> 
> Changes from v8:
>   - Gathered all received "Acked-by: " and "Reviewed-by: " tags
>   - Dropped patch to clk-pwm.c for reasons mentiond in [2]
>   - Expanded audience of unreviewed patches
> 
> Changes from v7:
>   - Changed commit messages of all patches to be brief and to the point.
>   - Added explanation of change in cover letter.
>   - Dropped change to pwm-sti.c as upon review it was unnecessary as struct
>     pwm_capture is not being modified in the PWM core.
> 
> Changes from v6:
>   - Split out the driver changes out into separate patches, one patch per file
>     for ease of reviewing.
> 
> Changes from v5:
>   - Dropped the conversion of struct pwm_capture to u64 for reasons mentioned
>     in https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11541.html
> 
> Changes from v4:
>   - Split the patch into two: one for changes to the drivers, and the actual
>     switch to u64 for ease of reverting should the need arise.
>   - Re-examined the patch and made the following corrections:
>       * intel_panel.c:
> 	DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP -> DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL (as only the numerator would be
> 	64-bit in this case).
>       * pwm-sti.c:
> 	do_div -> div_u64 (do_div is optimized only for x86 architectures, and
> 	div_u64's comment block suggests to use this as much as possible).
> 
> Changes from v3:
>   - Rebased to current tip of for-next.
> 
> Changes from v2:
>   - Fixed %u -> %llu in a dev_dbg in pwm-stm32-lp.c, thanks to kbuild test robot
>   - Added a couple of fixes to pwm-imx-tpm.c and pwm-sifive.c
> 
> Changes from v1:
>   - Fixed compilation errors seen when compiling for different archs.
> 
> v1:
>   - Reworked the change pushed upstream earlier [1] so as to not add an
>     extension to an obsolete API. With this change, pwm_ops->apply() can be
>     used to set pwm_state parameters as usual.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190916140048.GB7488@ulmo/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200312190859.GA19605@codeaurora.org/
> [3] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11906.html
> [4] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pwm/msg11986.html
> 
> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
> To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@mail.ru>
> Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
> Cc: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> Cc: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
> Cc: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
> Cc: Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@st.com>
> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>
> Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Kamil Debski <kamil@wypas.org>
> Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
> Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
> Cc: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
> Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
> Cc: NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
> Cc: Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
> Cc: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Yash Shah <yash.shah@sifive.com>
> 
> Guru Das Srinagesh (11):
>   drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro
>   hwmon: pwm-fan: Use 64-bit division macro
>   ir-rx51: Use 64-bit division macro
>   pwm: clps711x: Cast period to u32 before use as divisor
>   pwm: pwm-imx-tpm: Use 64-bit division macro
>   pwm: imx27: Use 64-bit division macro and function
>   pwm: sifive: Use 64-bit division macro
>   pwm: sun4i: Use nsecs_to_jiffies to avoid a division
>   backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function
>   clk: pwm: Use 64-bit division function
>   pwm: core: Convert period and duty cycle to u64
> 
>  drivers/clk/clk-pwm.c                      |  7 +++-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_panel.c |  2 +-
>  drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c                    |  2 +-
>  drivers/media/rc/ir-rx51.c                 |  3 +-
>  drivers/pwm/core.c                         | 14 ++++----
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-clps711x.c                 |  5 ++-
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-imx-tpm.c                  |  2 +-
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c                    | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c                   |  2 +-
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c                 |  2 +-
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c                    |  2 +-
>  drivers/pwm/sysfs.c                        |  8 ++---

>  drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c           |  3 +-

Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

>  include/linux/pwm.h                        | 12 +++----
>  14 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-24  6:43     ` Lee Jones
@ 2020-04-24 22:14       ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-27  6:44         ` Lee Jones
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guru Das Srinagesh @ 2020-04-24 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lee Jones
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Daniel Thompson, Mauro Carvalho Chehab,
	Alexander Shiyan, Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media,
	linux-pwm, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against
> things like flooding and spamming.  One of those protections is a
> check for "Too many recipients to the message".  Most of the time this
> simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval,
> but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration.
> 
> The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large.
> Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and
> contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl?  If so, consider pruning
> that a little.  Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent
> changes to a file.  As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend
> to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X
> years ago.  Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first
> instance and see how far that takes you.

Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets
and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the
audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain
unreviewed by anyone.

> If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe
> just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every
> ML.  It's still much more useful for the correct people to have
> visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times.

Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the
Cc-list and add all parties to all patches.

Thank you.

Guru Das.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro
  2020-04-24  6:17   ` Jani Nikula
@ 2020-04-24 22:17     ` Guru Das Srinagesh
  2020-04-27 13:48       ` Jani Nikula
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guru Das Srinagesh @ 2020-04-24 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jani Nikula
  Cc: linux-pwm, David Collins, David Airlie, intel-gfx, linux-kernel,
	dri-devel, Chris Wilson, Thierry Reding, Uwe Kleine-König,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 09:17:58AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_state.duty_cycle's
> > datatype to u64, prepare for this transition by using DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL
> > to handle a 64-bit dividend.
> >
> > To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> >
> 
> Superfluous blank line.

Will remove.

> 
> Anyway, please preserve the existing acks and reviews [1] so people
> don't have to do it again.
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> [1] http://lore.kernel.org/r/87h7yleb0i.fsf@intel.com

I dropped your Acked-by as the patch had to changed to resolve a merge
conflict when I rebased to tip. Could you please re-review this patch?

Thank you.

Guru Das.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64
  2020-04-24 22:14       ` Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-27  6:44         ` Lee Jones
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2020-04-27  6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: Kate Stewart, linux-fbdev, David Collins, Liam Girdwood,
	David Airlie, Michael Turquette, Kamil Debski, dri-devel,
	Chris Wilson, Atish Patra, Thierry Reding, linux-riscv,
	linux-clk, Daniel Thompson, Mauro Carvalho Chehab,
	Alexander Shiyan, Chen-Yu Tsai, NXP Linux Team,
	Uwe Kleine-König, Sascha Hauer, Guenter Roeck, linux-media,
	linux-pwm, Jean Delvare, Alexandre Torgue, Arnd Bergmann,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, intel-gfx, Mark Brown, Paul Walmsley,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy, Thomas Gleixner, Fabrice Gasnier,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team, Allison Randal, linux-hwmon,
	Maxime Coquelin, Richard Fontana, Stephen Boyd, Jingoo Han,
	linux-kernel, Yash Shah, Palmer Dabbelt, Dan Carpenter,
	Joe Perches, Shawn Guo

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 07:43:03AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > A great deal of mailing lists contain numerous protections against
> > things like flooding and spamming.  One of those protections is a
> > check for "Too many recipients to the message".  Most of the time this
> > simply requires moderator intervention by way of review and approval,
> > but this ultimately depends on the ML's configuration.
> > 
> > The first thing to ascertain is why your recipients list is so large.
> > Have you added every reviewer, subsystem-maintainer, maintainer and
> > contributor suggested by get-maintainer.pl?  If so, consider pruning
> > that a little.  Contributors do not tend to care about subsequent
> > changes to a file.  As someone who receives a lot of patches, I tend
> > to get fed-up when receiving patches simply because I made a change X
> > years ago.  Stick to listed maintainers/reviewers in the first
> > instance and see how far that takes you.
> 
> Thank you for the detailed reply. I did this in the first few patchsets
> and then when a few patches didn't get any attention, expanded the
> audience thus. Still, around 50% of the patches in this series remain
> unreviewed by anyone.

This isn't a reason to add more recipients (who are likely to care
even less than your original group).  However it *is* a good argument
for including all of the specified maintainers/reviewers in on all of
the patches.

> > If your recipients list is as succinct as reasonably possible, maybe
> > just accept that every version isn't going to be archived by every
> > ML.  It's still much more useful for the correct people to have
> > visibility into the set than for it to be archived multiple times.
> 
> Thank you, will prune the list and remove past contributors from the
> Cc-list and add all parties to all patches.

Great.  Once you've done that, we can start to help you acquire the
Acks you need on your remaining patches.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro
  2020-04-24 22:17     ` Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-04-27 13:48       ` Jani Nikula
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jani Nikula @ 2020-04-27 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: linux-pwm, David Collins, David Airlie, intel-gfx, linux-kernel,
	dri-devel, Chris Wilson, Thierry Reding, Uwe Kleine-König,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 09:17:58AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> > Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_state.duty_cycle's
>> > datatype to u64, prepare for this transition by using DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL
>> > to handle a 64-bit dividend.
>> >
>> > To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
>> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
>> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
>> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
>> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > Cc: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>> >
>> 
>> Superfluous blank line.
>
> Will remove.
>
>> 
>> Anyway, please preserve the existing acks and reviews [1] so people
>> don't have to do it again.
>> 
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>> 
>> [1] http://lore.kernel.org/r/87h7yleb0i.fsf@intel.com
>
> I dropped your Acked-by as the patch had to changed to resolve a merge
> conflict when I rebased to tip. Could you please re-review this patch?

Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v13 09/11] backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function
  2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 09/11] backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function Guru Das Srinagesh
@ 2020-05-26  7:00   ` Lee Jones
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lee Jones @ 2020-05-26  7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guru Das Srinagesh
  Cc: linux-pwm, Daniel Thompson, David Collins,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz, Jingoo Han, linux-kernel, dri-devel,
	Thierry Reding, linux-fbdev, Uwe Kleine-König,
	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:

> Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_state.period's datatype
> to u64, prepare for this transition by using div_u64 to handle a 64-bit
> dividend instead of a straight division operation.
> 
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
> Cc: Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>
> Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@codeaurora.org>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>

Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-26  7:00 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-04-22  2:57 [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 01/11] drm/i915: Use 64-bit division macro Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-24  6:17   ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-24 22:17     ` Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-27 13:48       ` Jani Nikula
2020-04-22  2:57 ` [PATCH v13 09/11] backlight: pwm_bl: Use 64-bit division function Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-05-26  7:00   ` Lee Jones
2020-04-22  8:49 ` [PATCH v13 00/11] Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 Daniel Thompson
2020-04-22 23:37   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-23  9:20     ` Daniel Thompson
2020-04-23 11:48 ` Lee Jones
2020-04-23 21:53   ` Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-24  6:43     ` Lee Jones
2020-04-24 22:14       ` Guru Das Srinagesh
2020-04-27  6:44         ` Lee Jones
2020-04-24  6:45     ` Lee Jones
2020-04-24  6:46 ` Lee Jones

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).