From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com (Ivaylo Dimitrov) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:52:11 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fix ir-rx51 by using PWM pdata In-Reply-To: <20160428212748.GI5995@atomide.com> References: <1461714709-10455-1-git-send-email-tony@atomide.com> <57227E63.4040907@gmail.com> <20160428212748.GI5995@atomide.com> Message-ID: <5724F0CB.6060807@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 29.04.2016 00:27, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Ivaylo Dimitrov [160428 14:21]: >> >> I didn't test legacy boot, as I don't really see any value of doing it now >> the end of the legacy boot is near, the driver does not function correctly, >> however the patchset at least allows for the driver to be build and we have >> something to improve on. And I am going to send a patch that fixes the >> problem with omap_dm_timer_request_specific(). So, for both patches, you may >> add: >> >> Tested-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov > > OK thanks. > > Mauro, do the driver changes look OK to you? > > If so, I could queue the driver too for v4.7 because of the > dependency with your ack. Or I can provide you an immutable > branch with just the pdata changes against v4.6-rc1 if you > prefer that. > In the meanwhile I was able to make the driver functional (on top of the $subject series) - for that purpose I had to fix dmtimer.c - it turns out that PM runtime get()/put() is called in almost every function exported by dmtimer, which in turn slows down IR transmission to 4-5s instead of 0.5s. I also replaced GPT9 dmtimer with PWM framework API (pwm-omap-dmtimer needs a patch) and implemented some DT support. Now, how shall I proceed with those - wait for the $subject series to be accepted or post the patches now? Tony, I was unable to find the tree on kernel.org your patches are in. Which tree to use to base my patches on? Thanks, Ivo