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: 1132 bytes --]

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.

Thierry

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