Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1775 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 08:39:01AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Thierry,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:07:14PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 02:36:39PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Hello Thierry,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > Geert Uytterhoeven found a regression in one of my patches. The same
> > > > problem exists in several further commits. The respective drivers are
> > > > fixed in this series.
> > > > 
> > > > The affected commits for the first patch is already in v5.4, so this
> > > > patch should maybe backported to stable.
> > > > The others are in Thierry's for-next branch only.
> > > 
> > > These four broken patches were now included in your pull request to
> > > Linus for v5.14-rc1 but these fixes were not. I wonder that the
> > > regression Geert reported made you back out the offending commit but you
> > > didn't care for the four identical problems in pwm-spear, pwm-tiecap,
> > > pwm-berlin and pwm-ep93xx. Did you miss this series?
> > 
> > Ugh... this is a nice big mess now. In retrospect I should've just
> > backed out all those patches. Or rather not have applied them in the
> > first place until they got a Tested-by.
> > 
> > I'll pull in this series and will send this as a follow-up pull request.
> 
> I saw you applied the series to your for-next branch, so next is fixed
> since next-20210709. I wonder what makes you wait sending these to
> Linus.

Given the mess that this caused I didn't feel comfortable pushing this
to Linus immediately and instead give people a bit of time to find any
potential issues in linux-next first.

I'm going to send the pull request later today.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]