| Message ID | 20240329103544.545290-2-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | pwm: Fix setting period with #pwm-cells = <1> and of_pwm_single_xlate() | expand |
Uwe Kleine-König, 2024-03-29T11:35:40+01:00: > For drivers making use of of_pwm_single_xlate() (i.e. those that don't > pass a hwpwm index) and also don't pass flags, setting period was > wrongly skipped. This affects the pwm-pxa and ti-sn65dsi86 drivers. > > Reported-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz> > Fixes: 40ade0c2e794 ("pwm: Let the of_xlate callbacks accept references without period") > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > --- > drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c > index 54a62879fffa..ee3ef3f44bc5 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ of_pwm_single_xlate(struct pwm_chip *chip, const struct of_phandle_args *args) > if (IS_ERR(pwm)) > return pwm; > > - if (args->args_count > 1) > + if (args->args_count > 0) > pwm->args.period = args->args[0]; > > pwm->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; > -- > 2.43.0 Thank you, this fixes the issue for me. Tested-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz> Just a nit: I am not sure if perhaps this being part of the report thread is sufficient, but generally there should probably also be a Closes: trailer for regzbot to automatically mark the report as resolved among other reasons. Best regards, K. B.
Hello Karel, On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Karel Balej wrote: > Uwe Kleine-König, 2024-03-29T11:35:40+01:00: > > For drivers making use of of_pwm_single_xlate() (i.e. those that don't > > pass a hwpwm index) and also don't pass flags, setting period was > > wrongly skipped. This affects the pwm-pxa and ti-sn65dsi86 drivers. > > > > Reported-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz> > > Fixes: 40ade0c2e794 ("pwm: Let the of_xlate callbacks accept references without period") > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > --- > > drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c > > index 54a62879fffa..ee3ef3f44bc5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c > > @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ of_pwm_single_xlate(struct pwm_chip *chip, const struct of_phandle_args *args) > > if (IS_ERR(pwm)) > > return pwm; > > > > - if (args->args_count > 1) > > + if (args->args_count > 0) > > pwm->args.period = args->args[0]; > > > > pwm->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL; > > -- > > 2.43.0 > > Thank you, this fixes the issue for me. > > Tested-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz> Great, thanks for your report and test. > Just a nit: I am not sure if perhaps this being part of the report > thread is sufficient, but generally there should probably also be a > Closes: trailer for regzbot to automatically mark the report as resolved > among other reasons. I applied this patch and added Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/D05IVTPYH35N.2CLDG6LSILRSN@matfyz.cz to the Signoff area which should be good enough to make the regzbot recognize this as the matching fix. Uwe
On 29.03.24 14:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:21:15PM +0100, Karel Balej wrote: >> Just a nit: I am not sure if perhaps this being part of the report >> thread is sufficient, but generally there should probably also be a >> Closes: trailer for regzbot to automatically mark the report as resolved >> among other reasons. > > I applied this patch and added > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/D05IVTPYH35N.2CLDG6LSILRSN@matfyz.cz > > to the Signoff area which should be good enough to make the regzbot > recognize this as the matching fix. Thx for that. FWIW, those tags are not only for regzbot: they are older, as Linus wants them for good reasons[1]; that's why the docs also tell people to place them[2] for many years now. But a lot of developer are either not aware or ignore that. Ciao, Thorsten [1] for details, see: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjMmSZzMJ3Xnskdg4+GGz=5p5p+GSYyFBTh0f-DgvdBWg@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgs38ZrfPvy=nOwVkVzjpM3VFU1zobP37Fwd_h9iAD5JQ@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjxzafG-=J8oT30s7upn4RhBs6TX-uVFZ5rME+L5_DoJA@mail.gmail.com/ [2] see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst (http://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html) and Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst (https://docs.kernel.org/process/5.Posting.html) -- Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c index 54a62879fffa..ee3ef3f44bc5 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ of_pwm_single_xlate(struct pwm_chip *chip, const struct of_phandle_args *args) if (IS_ERR(pwm)) return pwm; - if (args->args_count > 1) + if (args->args_count > 0) pwm->args.period = args->args[0]; pwm->args.polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
For drivers making use of of_pwm_single_xlate() (i.e. those that don't pass a hwpwm index) and also don't pass flags, setting period was wrongly skipped. This affects the pwm-pxa and ti-sn65dsi86 drivers. Reported-by: Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz> Fixes: 40ade0c2e794 ("pwm: Let the of_xlate callbacks accept references without period") Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> --- drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)