From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the regulator tree Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:26:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20160725142611.GQ21170@ulmo.ba.sec> References: <20160711165648.029cb6f7@canb.auug.org.au> <20160711213059.GA12816@ulmo.ba.sec> <20160711213900.GA12942@ulmo.ba.sec> <20160725082906.GA4667@ulmo.ba.sec> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8HhMLSHvAouSipEr" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Boris Brezillon , Alexandre Courbot List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --8HhMLSHvAouSipEr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 06:29:00AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Thierry Reding > wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:39:00PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:47:34AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > > > Hi Thierry, > >> > > > > >> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in: > >> > > > > >> > > > drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c > >> > > > > >> > > > between commit: > >> > > > > >> > > > 830583004e61 ("regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call= ") > >> > > > 27bfa8893b15 ("regulator: pwm: Support for enable GPIO") > >> > > > c2588393e631 ("regulator: pwm: Fix regulator ramp delay for co= ntinuous mode") > >> > > > > >> > > > from the regulator tree and commit: > >> > > > > >> > > > b0303deaa480 ("regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time= ") > >> > > > 8bd57ca236d0 ("regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API") > >> > > > 25d16595935b ("regulator: pwm: Retrieve correct voltage") > >> > > > 53f239af4c14 ("regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode c= ases") > >> > > > > >> > > > from the pwm tree. > >> > > > > >> > > > I fixed it up (I think, please check - see below) and can carry = the fix > >> > > > as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerne= d, but > >> > > > any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream m= aintainer > >> > > > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to c= onsider > >> > > > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minim= ise any > >> > > > particularly complex conflicts. > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > Stephen Rothwell > >> > > > >> > > [ cut ] > >> > > > >> > > > - /* Delay required by PWM regulator to settle to the new = voltage */ > >> > > > - usleep_range(ramp_delay, ramp_delay + 1000); > >> > > > + /* Ramp delay is in uV/uS. Adjust to uS and delay */ > >> > > > + ramp_delay =3D DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(min_uV - old_uV), ramp_d= elay); > >> > > > >> > > This was what I was worried about and why I originally sent my pat= ch > >> > > based upon Boris's series. The above should be: > >> > > > >> > > ramp_delay =3D DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(req_min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay); > >> > > > >> > > Specifically note the use of "req_min_uV" and not "min_uV". > >> > > >> > Okay, so this is something that needs to be fixed up in one of Boris' > >> > patches? Can you help point out where exactly? The conflict should be > >> > gone as of tomorrow's linux-next. > >> > >> Looks like the below should be squashed into commit: > >> > >> 4585082afab4 regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases > >> > >> Can you confirm? > >> > >> Thierry > >> > >> --- >8 --- > >> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm= -regulator.c > >> index 263a2d16d909..c24524242da2 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c > >> +++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c > >> @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regula= tor_dev *rdev, > >> return 0; > >> > >> /* Ramp delay is in uV/uS. Adjust to uS and delay */ > >> - ramp_delay =3D DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay); > >> + ramp_delay =3D DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(req_min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay= ); > >> usleep_range(ramp_delay, ramp_delay + DIV_ROUND_UP(ramp_delay, 1= 0)); > >> > >> return 0; > > > > Doug? Can you confirm? >=20 > Yes, right. Sorry, previous email got lost in the shuffle since I was > on vacation. >=20 > Right, commit 4585082afab4 ("regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous > mode cases") is the one that renamed the parameters and so this use of > one of the parameters needs to be part of that commit. Squashed it into the above commit and pushed everything out. Thanks, Thierry --8HhMLSHvAouSipEr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJXliGDAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhpZcQAJZzkoM00c1z8yTMUUQlbWpq DyiWudzp7PQBFucasoP3HwHl7H5OmCFgnebEVrrT2f/5at5yGtmcYAoQQ5E9cq8m 0ffml0oH58iLtArgTCJzOoatJBAQfzYohOnKZa5GW/IUmyM1FsZvn/RWPWuC3fUn jbDWkYHYWHwiT6VbHOL3gbWR+bAKNa47lEhcalb00Sfcb5dtTIljN2kx2sjvLmq0 g5MUzu3Bk/VLOqRoumEO6PYNmZ42rGlGVpMJ3o86SSI1Rx1VAOx52mnwNRbUhloa 3p4Ig2FKps3ETlZERqqEn03Ri/iS9qO3RMMl3O4M+zPWzWBXW1Ea8YNDO4/AikpP xZAyza/+pqbuICqkhAkiJ5zSW174o4B5YuEzuYZxLNZrQa2iTIrppiSQIoqYv3Xz uEnIsXdRGqG7PN7ICAXgMTABhuTcjinJL+i0MpxzxHw8Ybvtm6iXCjdOexlNiCFH YO/L4mZ8GtxaH+KcPMO9FTHQFVQMmqBFvhvsdMHG9IJC6wRLrD1XKQN/GsF6ZNAZ uNZzNwjPKqrmaLqU73xmYdCYppzxLmIXled2ndl+aaxng/o5Dh4L+DuEdSAYsGUf kTplv0jesgHi6fXWT90B/dkikATkHZco8Jrq5byM4gs6yGajvIk+7aBt0g+iUh7V pU9dF1grbx/ObQ7BsAey =vGpM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8HhMLSHvAouSipEr--