Hi Uwe, thanks for the review.

On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 10:18 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

[...]

> > +                duty_cycle = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL(state->duty_cycle * RPI_PWM_MAX_DUTY,
> > +					           RPI_PWM_PERIOD_NS);
> 
> ... and round down here.
> 
> Just to be sure: writing RPI_PWM_MAX_DUTY (i.e. 255) yields 100% duty
> cycle, right?

Yes, at 255 the signal is flat.

> > +        else
> > +                duty_cycle = RPI_PWM_MAX_DUTY;
> > +
> > +	if (duty_cycle == rpipwm->duty_cycle)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	ret = raspberrypi_pwm_set_property(rpipwm->firmware, RPI_PWM_CUR_DUTY_REG,
> > +					   duty_cycle);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to set duty cycle: %d\n", ret);
> > +		return ret;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * This sets the default duty cycle after resetting the board, we
> > +	 * updated it every time to mimic Raspberry Pi's downstream's driver
> > +	 * behaviour.
> > +	 */
> > +	ret = raspberrypi_pwm_set_property(rpipwm->firmware, RPI_PWM_DEF_DUTY_REG,
> > +					   duty_cycle);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		dev_err(chip->dev, "Failed to set default duty cycle: %d\n", ret);
> > +		return ret;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +        rpipwm->duty_cycle = duty_cycle;
> 
> Please use tabs for indention. (The general hint is to use checkpatch
> which (I hope) tells you about problems like this.)

Sorry for that.

I took note of the rest of comments and will update the code.

Regards,
Nicolas