[PATCH v2 3/5] counter: stm32-timer-cnt: Use TIM_DIER_CCxIE(x) instead of TIM_DIER_CCxIE(x)

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Hello Lee,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 09:44:51AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > 
> > > These two defines have the same purpose and this change doesn't
> > > introduce any differences in drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.o.
> > > 
> > > The only difference between the two is that
> > > 
> > > 	TIM_DIER_CC_IE(1) == TIM_DIER_CC2IE
> > > 
> > > while
> > > 
> > > 	TIM_DIER_CCxIE(1) == TIM_DIER_CC1IE
> > > 
> > > . That makes it necessary to have an explicit "+ 1" in the user code,
> > > but IMHO this is a good thing as this is the code locatation that
> > > "knows" that for software channel 1 you have to use TIM_DIER_CC2IE
> > > (because software guys start counting at 0, while the relevant hardware
> > > designer started at 1).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at baylibre.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/counter/stm32-timer-cnt.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Did you drop William's Ack on purpose?
> 
> Yes, because a) I was unsure what he didn't like about the subject, and
> (more importantly) b) I split the patch in question. I should have
> written that in the cover letter, sorry.
> 
> (Note I only announced to have fixed the subject prefix of the pwm
> patch. I assume you won't include that in your pull request, but if you
> do, please do s/-/: / on it. That's another thing I failed with for this
> series.)

Which patches need to be in the pull-request and which can be hoovered
up by their associated subsystems?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]