On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:26:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:20:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Thierry,
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:59:42AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 05:57:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 04, 2018 at 10:19:45PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > Hello Thierry,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:21:52AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > > The API to configure a PWM using pwm_enable(), pwm_disable(),
> > > > > > pwm_config() and pwm_set_polarity() is superseeded by atomically setting
> > > > > > the parameters using pwm_apply_state(). To get forward with deprecating
> > > > > > the former set of functions use the opportunity that there is no current
> > > > > > user of pwm_set_polarity() and remove it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think this patch is undisputed and wonder if it fell through the
> > > > > cracks given that a patch sent later made it into your pwm/for-4.20-rc1
> > > > > pull request.
> > > > 
> > > > Now that you pushed out my lpc patch to your for-next branch (thanks!),
> > > > I wonder what you plan to do with this patch.
> > > 
> > > Ping! There are also a few other patches that didn't catch your
> > > attention yet:
> > > 
> > >  - series for pwm-imx starting with
> > >    "pwm: imx: remove if block where the condition is always wrong"
> > >  - "pwm: don't use memcmp to compare struct state variables"
> > >  - "pwm: drop per-chip dbg_show callback"
> > 
> > In a different thread it was suggested to resend the patches instead of
> > sending a ping. Should I do that? There are also
> > 
> >  - pwm: rearrange structures to group members by purpose
> >  - [RFC] Documentation: pwm: rework documentation for the framework
> > 
> > which didn't get any feedback from you yet.
> > 
> > There is a patchwork instance for the pwm list[1]. Are you using that?
> > It seems to be orphaned for some time but was already used this year.
> > Would you accept some help here? E.g. 
> > 
> >  - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1001130/
> >    -> superseeded as there is a v3
> >  - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/993022/
> >    -> rejected is probably right
> >  - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/860540/
> >    -> applied as bb084c0f61d659f0e6d371b096e0e57998f191d6
> >  - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=72798
> >    -> rejected
> 
> It's sad to not get any feedback from you, and I'm not the only one
> waiting for a reply. Linux is at -rc6 and there is only a single patch
> in your (visible) queue for the next merge window although there are
> some patches that look ready for application on the list.
> 
> I guess it's lack of time that keeps you from caring more for the pwm
> stuff. If you need help (e.g. by caring for the patchwork todo list) I'm
> willing to spend some time. If it helps you I can also collect the
> patches that I think are ok and provide a pull request to your tree.

I certainly wouldn't mind a little help. Reviewing patches will
definitely help move things along.

Thierry