Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2017-01-18 Thread Clemens Gruber
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:00:32PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > > > > Using

Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2017-01-18 Thread Clemens Gruber
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:00:32PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > > > > Using

Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2017-01-18 Thread Thierry Reding
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > > and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform > > (mask & 1),

Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2017-01-18 Thread Thierry Reding
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > > and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform > > (mask & 1),

Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2017-01-18 Thread Thierry Reding
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > > > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > > > and k greater

Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2017-01-18 Thread Thierry Reding
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:34:02PM +0100, Clemens Gruber wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > > > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > > > and k greater

Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2016-12-05 Thread Clemens Gruber
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform > (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call >

Re: [PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2016-12-05 Thread Clemens Gruber
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:02:50PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote: > Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) > and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform > (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call >

[PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2016-11-29 Thread Florian Vaussard
Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) is in reality equivalent to regmap_update_bits(..., mask,

[PATCH] pwm: pca9685: Fix misuse of regmap_update_bits

2016-11-29 Thread Florian Vaussard
Using regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) with 'mask' following (1 << k) and k greater than 0 is wrong. Indeed, _regmap_update_bits will perform (mask & 1), which results in 0 if LSB of mask is 0. Thus the call regmap_update_bits(..., mask, 1) is in reality equivalent to regmap_update_bits(..., mask,