From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: voice.shen@atmel.com (Bo Shen)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:30:36 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v5] PWM: atmel-pwm: add PWM controller driver
In-Reply-To: <526E797A.9010509@atmel.com>
References: <1380532240-18650-1-git-send-email-voice.shen@atmel.com>
 <20131008131727.GB12839@ulmo.nvidia.com> <52664FB6.4000004@atmel.com>
 <526E797A.9010509@atmel.com>
Message-ID: <5271EAFC.3040608@atmel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Nicolas,

On 10/28/2013 10:49 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 22/10/2013 12:13, Bo Shen :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On 10/8/2013 21:17, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 05:10:40PM +0800, Bo Shen wrote:
>>>> Add Atmel PWM controller driver based on PWM framework.
>>>>
>>>> This is the basic function implementation of Atmel PWM controller.
>>>> It can work with PWM based led and backlight.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bo Shen <voice.shen@atmel.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v5:
>>>>     - call clk_disable directly, if so, it won't cause more than one
>>>> channel
>>>>       enabled, the clock can not be disabled.
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v4:
>>>>     - check the return value of clk_prepare()
>>>>     - change channel register size as constant
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>     - change compatible string from "atmel,sama5-pwm" to
>>>> "atmel,sama5d3-pwm"
>>>>     - Add PWM led example in binding documentation
>>>>     - Using micro replace hard code
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>     - Address the comments from Thierry Reding
>>>>
>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/atmel-pwm.txt          |   41 +++
>>>>    drivers/pwm/Kconfig                                |    9 +
>>>>    drivers/pwm/Makefile                               |    1 +
>>>>    drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c                            |  344
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    4 files changed, 395 insertions(+)
>>>>    create mode 100644
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/atmel-pwm.txt
>>>>    create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel.c
>>>
>>> I haven't seen an Acked-by from the device tree bindings maintainers on
>>> this. I've Cc'ed them, so hopefully one of them has time to review.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> As a recommendation from the recent Kernel Summit stated, you will have
> to separate the binding itself from the driver and associated code.
> Simply send the binding documentation to the DT maintainers but still
> keep the two patches linked together in a series (but without putting DT
> maintainers nor the DT mailing-list in CC of the non-documentation
> patches).
>
> This way you may have more chances to get feedback.

Thanks, I will split the binding document as a separate patch.

> Thanks, bye,

Best Regards,
Bo Shen