From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:05:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 01/46] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled() In-Reply-To: <20160412110152.GG18882@ulmo.ba.sec> References: <1459368249-13241-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1459368249-13241-2-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20160412110152.GG18882@ulmo.ba.sec> Message-ID: <20160414130539.272166b0@bbrezillon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Thierry On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:01:52 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:24PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Commit 5c31252c4a86 ("pwm: Add the pwm_is_enabled() helper") introduced a > > new function to test whether a PWM device is enabled or not without > > manipulating PWM internal fields. > > Hiding this is necessary if we want to smoothly move to the atomic PWM > > config approach without impacting PWM drivers. > > Fix this driver to use pwm_is_enabled() instead of directly accessing the > > ->flags field. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > > --- > > drivers/pwm/pwm-rcar.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Applied, thanks. I'd like to rebase my atomic series on top of pwm/for-next but I don't see the 4 patches you said you applied. Did you forget to push your local branch, or did you decide to revert them based on Lee's comments? Regards, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com