From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thierry.reding@gmail.com (Thierry Reding) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:21:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH RESEND v5 1/2] PWM: PXA: add device tree support to PWM driver In-Reply-To: <529E26C9.30707@newsguy.com> References: <1379791174-2369-1-git-send-email-mikedunn@newsguy.com> <1379791174-2369-2-git-send-email-mikedunn@newsguy.com> <20131203101714.GG21178@ulmo.nvidia.com> <529E26C9.30707@newsguy.com> Message-ID: <20131204092152.GL19943@ulmo.nvidia.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 10:45:29AM -0800, Mike Dunn wrote: > On 12/03/2013 02:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:19:33PM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote: > >> This patch adds device tree support to the PXA's PWM driver. Nothing > >> needs to be extracted from the device tree node by the PWM device. > >> Client devices need only specify the period; the per-chip index is > >> implicitly zero because one device node must be present for each PWM > >> output in use. This approach is more convenient due to the wide > >> variability in the number of PWM channels present across the various PXA > >> variants, and is made possible by the fact that the register sets for > >> each PWM channel are segregated from each other. An of_xlate() method > >> is added to parse this single-cell node. The existing ID table is > >> reused for the match table data. > >> > >> Tested on a Palm Treo 680 (both platform data and DT cases). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mike Dunn > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pxa-pwm.txt | 30 +++++++++++++ > >> drivers/pwm/pwm-pxa.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > >> 2 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pxa-pwm.txt > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > It looks like this fell through the cracks. Is this patch still the > > latest one you have? Should it still be applied? > > > > Thierry > > > > Hi Thierry, > > Funny I should hear from you about this today.... I just turned my attention > back to this today and noticed that it never made it into your for-next branch. > Yes, it is the latest. If the patch still applies cleanly, please feel free. > Otherwise, I'd be glad to rework it against something more recent. I've applied it to my for-next branch (with some minor whitespace fixups and some tuning to how the OF match table is defined). I don't consider any of the changes risky, but it'd be great if you could still test the version that I pushed. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: