On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 06:23:48PM +0200, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:

+static int max7360_pwm_round_waveform_tohw(struct pwm_chip *chip,
+					   struct pwm_device *pwm,
+					   const struct pwm_waveform *wf,
+					   void *_wfhw)
+{
+	struct max7360_pwm_waveform *wfhw = _wfhw;
+	u64 duty_steps;
+
+	/*
+	 * Ignore user provided values for period_length_ns and duty_offset_ns:
+	 * we only support fixed period of MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS and offset of 0.
+	 * Values from 0 to 254 as duty_steps will provide duty cycles of 0/256
+	 * to 254/256, while value 255 will provide a duty cycle of 100%.
+	 */
+	if (wf->duty_length_ns >= MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS) {
+		duty_steps = MAX7360_PWM_MAX;
+	} else {
+		duty_steps = (u32)wf->duty_length_ns * MAX7360_PWM_STEPS / MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS;
+		if (duty_steps == MAX7360_PWM_MAX)
+			duty_steps = MAX7360_PWM_MAX - 1;
+	}
+
+	wfhw->duty_steps = min(MAX7360_PWM_MAX, duty_steps);
+	wfhw->enabled = !!wf->period_length_ns;
+
+	return 0;

The unconditional return 0 is wrong and testing with PWM_DEBUG enabled
should tell you that.

I think the right thing to do here is:

	if (wf->period_length_ns > MAX7360_PWM_PERIOD_NS)
		return 1;
	else
		return 0;

Otherwise looks fine.

Best regards
Uwe