From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: haojian.zhuang@linaro.org (Haojian Zhuang) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 17:17:31 +0800 Subject: [PATCH RESEND v5 1/2] PWM: PXA: add device tree support to PWM driver In-Reply-To: <20131204090312.GK19943@ulmo.nvidia.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> <529E8193.1040606@linaro.org> <20131204090312.GK19943@ulmo.nvidia.com> Message-ID: <529EF32B.90805@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12/04/2013 05:03 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:12:51AM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: >> On 12/04/2013 02:45 AM, 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. >>> >>> Also, we never got any ACKs for patch 2/2, which just adds the nodes to >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/pxa27x.dtsi >>> Any advice on whom to nudge? >>> >>> Thanks much! >>> Mike >>> >> It's fine to me. >> >> Acked-by: Haojian Zhuang > I think it's customary to take DTS file updates through the architecture > trees, so I think it'd be better if you took patch 2/2. There aren't any > dependencies between both patches either. > > Thierry OK. Let me handle this. Regards Haojian