From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:29:13 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] Add PWM polarity flag macro for DT
In-Reply-To: <51E81E1C.20708@wwwdotorg.org>
References: <1374101664-21112-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
 <51E81E1C.20708@wwwdotorg.org>
Message-ID: <10033310.z2U2FSCElN@avalon>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Stephen,

On Thursday 18 July 2013 10:55:56 Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/17/2013 04:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Here's a small patch set that replaces PWM polarity numerical constants
> > with macros in DT.
> 
> The series,
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> 
> I'm (very very) slightly hesitant about patch 3/4, since it's moving towards
> all PWMs having to use the same specifier format, whereas specifiers are at
> least potentially binding-specific, not device-type-specific. However,
> consistency is good; there's no need to do something different just for the
> heck of it. Equally, there's nothing actually stopping a new binding from
> defining its own format rather than simply deferring to pwm.txt if it
> absolutely has to, so I think this will turn out fine.

Exactly, that's why I don't think it's an issue. pwm.txt defines a common 
format, individual bindings are free to use it or not.

Thierry, if you're fine with the patches, could you take them in your tree 
with Stephen's Reviewed-by, or should I report them and send you a pull 
request ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart