It doesn't make sense to allow the duty cycle to be larger than the period. I can see this behavior by, e.g.:
# echo 1 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/export # cat /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm1/period 100 # echo 101 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm1/duty_cycle [... driver may or may not reject the value, or trigger some logic bug ...] It's better to see: # echo 1 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/export # cat /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm1/period 100 # echo 101 > /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0/pwm1/duty_cycle -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannor...@chromium.org> --- drivers/pwm/core.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c index dba3843c53b8..9246b60f894a 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c @@ -463,6 +463,9 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device *pwm, struct pwm_state *state) if (!memcmp(state, &pwm->state, sizeof(*state))) return 0; + if (state->duty_cycle > state->period) + return -EINVAL; + if (pwm->chip->ops->apply) { err = pwm->chip->ops->apply(pwm->chip, pwm, state); if (err) -- 2.8.0.rc3.226.g39d4020