| Message ID | cover.1587523702.git.gurus@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Convert PWM period and duty cycle to u64 | expand |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(-)
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.
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.
[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(-)