Re: [tip: objtool/urgent] objtool, pwm: mediatek: Prevent theoretical divide-by-zero in pwm_mediatek_config()

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Ingo,

On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 12:00:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I wonder a bit about procedures here. While I like that warnings that 
> > pop up in drivers/pwm (and elsewhere) are cared for, I think that the 
> > sensible way to change warning related settings is to make it hard to 
> > enable them first (harder than "depends on !COMPILE_TEST" "To avoid 
> > breaking bots too badly") and then work on the identified problems 
> > before warning broadly. The way chosen here instead seems to be 
> > enabling the warning immediately and then post fixes to the warnings 
> > and merge them without respective maintainer feedback in less than 12 
> > hours.
> 
> As I indicated elsewhere in this thread, it's a WIP branch, so we'll 

That sounds as if I should know that. But it's neither in the part of
the thread that I was Cc:d, nor in the cover letter.

> rebase it if/as we get feedback from maintainers: fix or skip the patch 
> on negative feedback, adding in tags on positive feedback.
> 
> Does this particular patch look good to you?

I fail to see an urgency and so think this patch should better go via
the pwm tree. Do you consider it urgent (as the branch name suggests)?
Or is this v6.16 material?

> > > Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:PWM SUBSYSTEM)
> > > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/fb56444939325cc173e752ba199abd7aeae3bf12.1742852847.git.jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> I've also tentatively added your Acked-by, if that's OK with you.

The patch is OK. Iff you can convince me that it should go via tip, it's
fine for me.

Best regards
Uwe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature