From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] pwm: add support for atomic update
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:49:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720214913.73c47fa6@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720171950.GE11162@sirena.org.uk>
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:19:50 +0100
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:31:57PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> > - dropped pwm-regulator patches (should be submitted separately)
>
> I think the second patch needs to go in with this series doesn't it? It
> was just the enable one that was good to go immediately IIRC.
I was planning on submitting those two patches after the PWM changes
have been merged, but you're right, maybe we should think about a proper
way to smoothly get all of them in the same release.
I have rebased my work on top your regulator/topic/pwm branch containing
Lee's work [1].
Note that patch 1 has changed a bit to take Lee's additions into
account.
Thierry, could you create a branch based on Mark's regulator/topic/pwm
branch ?
If everybody agrees on the solution I'll send a v3 rebasing my work on
top of this topic branch.
Best Regards,
Boris
[1]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux-rk/tree/atomic-pwm-v3
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: "Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Bryan Wu" <cooloney@gmail.com>,
"Richard Purdie" <rpurdie@rpsys.net>,
"Jacek Anaszewski" <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>,
linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, "Heiko Stuebner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
"Jingoo Han" <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
"Lee Jones" <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
"Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard" <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
"Tomi Valkeinen" <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
"Doug Anderson" <dianders@google.com>,
"Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] pwm: add support for atomic update
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:49:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720214913.73c47fa6@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720171950.GE11162@sirena.org.uk>
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:19:50 +0100
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:31:57PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> > - dropped pwm-regulator patches (should be submitted separately)
>
> I think the second patch needs to go in with this series doesn't it? It
> was just the enable one that was good to go immediately IIRC.
I was planning on submitting those two patches after the PWM changes
have been merged, but you're right, maybe we should think about a proper
way to smoothly get all of them in the same release.
I have rebased my work on top your regulator/topic/pwm branch containing
Lee's work [1].
Note that patch 1 has changed a bit to take Lee's additions into
account.
Thierry, could you create a branch based on Mark's regulator/topic/pwm
branch ?
If everybody agrees on the solution I'll send a v3 rebasing my work on
top of this topic branch.
Best Regards,
Boris
[1]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux-rk/tree/atomic-pwm-v3
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 00/10] pwm: add support for atomic update
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:49:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720214913.73c47fa6@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720171950.GE11162@sirena.org.uk>
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:19:50 +0100
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:31:57PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> > - dropped pwm-regulator patches (should be submitted separately)
>
> I think the second patch needs to go in with this series doesn't it? It
> was just the enable one that was good to go immediately IIRC.
I was planning on submitting those two patches after the PWM changes
have been merged, but you're right, maybe we should think about a proper
way to smoothly get all of them in the same release.
I have rebased my work on top your regulator/topic/pwm branch containing
Lee's work [1].
Note that patch 1 has changed a bit to take Lee's additions into
account.
Thierry, could you create a branch based on Mark's regulator/topic/pwm
branch ?
If everybody agrees on the solution I'll send a v3 rebasing my work on
top of this topic branch.
Best Regards,
Boris
[1]https://github.com/bbrezillon/linux-rk/tree/atomic-pwm-v3
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-20 15:31 [PATCH v2 00/10] pwm: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` [PATCH v2 01/10] pwm: introduce default period and polarity concepts Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-10-06 10:09 ` Alexandre Belloni
2015-10-06 10:09 ` Alexandre Belloni
2015-10-06 10:09 ` Alexandre Belloni
2015-07-20 15:31 ` [PATCH v2 02/10] pwm: define a new pwm_state struct Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:31 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 03/10] pwm: move the enabled/disabled info to " Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 04/10] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 05/10] pwm: declare a default PWM state Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 06/10] pwm: add the PWM initial state retrieval infra Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 07/10] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 08/10] pwm: add information about polarity, duty cycle and period to debugfs Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 09/10] pwm: rockchip: add initial state retrieval Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] pwm: rockchip: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 15:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 17:19 ` [PATCH v2 00/10] pwm: " Mark Brown
2015-07-20 17:19 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-20 17:19 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-20 19:49 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2015-07-20 19:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 19:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 20:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-20 20:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-20 20:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-20 20:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 20:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 20:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-25 6:36 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-25 6:36 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-25 6:36 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-08-17 7:18 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-08-17 7:18 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-08-17 7:18 ` Boris Brezillon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150720214913.73c47fa6@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.