Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1440405 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] pwm: pwm-tiecap: Update dt binding document to use proper unit address

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] pwm: pwm-tiecap: Update dt binding document to  use proper unit address Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] pwm: pwm-tiecap: Update dt binding document to  use proper unit address Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] pwm: pwm-tiecap: Update dt binding document to  use proper unit address Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:40 +0200

#1440405 — Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] pwm: pwm-tiecap: Update dt binding document to use proper unit address

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 10:56:50AM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> Replace unit address from 0 to the proper physical address. Also insure
> that the unit address matches the reg property address.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiecap.txt | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

I applied this long ago but never let you know: Applied, thanks.

Thierry

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1440411

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:56:23AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 10:56:50AM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> > Replace unit address from 0 to the proper physical address. Also insure
> > that the unit address matches the reg property address.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiecap.txt | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> I applied this long ago but never let you know: Applied, thanks.

Actually I didn't. And it seems the reason is that it doesn't apply
cleanly. For some reason my tree doesn't have an entry for the ecap
example on am437x. Am I missing a patch? Can you resend whatever is
not in linux-next yet?

Thierry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1440448

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:06:29PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:56:23AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 10:56:50AM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> > > Replace unit address from 0 to the proper physical address. Also insure
> > > that the unit address matches the reg property address.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@ti.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-tiecap.txt | 8 ++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > I applied this long ago but never let you know: Applied, thanks.
> 
> Actually I didn't. And it seems the reason is that it doesn't apply
> cleanly. For some reason my tree doesn't have an entry for the ecap
> example on am437x. Am I missing a patch? Can you resend whatever is
> not in linux-next yet?

Oh, nevermind my blabbering, it took me too long to realize that this is
the series that Tony had picked up for the most part, and I hadn't
properly marked it done in patchwork.

I'll go get some coffee now.

Thierry

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web