Re: [PATCH] PWM: drop legacy wrapper for changing polarity

Uwe Kleine-König
2018-12-06T09:20:57Z

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

Best regards
Uwe

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/