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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1351779 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

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 v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com> - 2016-03-07 17:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - 2016-03-11 11:00 +0100

#1351779 — Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] pwm: add support for atomic update

Thierry,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com> wrote:
> So just to summarize:
>
> * Add pwm_get_state(), pwm_apply_state(), pwm_get_args().
> pwm_get_state() initially returns 0 for duty cycle if driver doesn't
> support readout.
>
> * Re-implement pwm_get_period() (and maybe other similar functions)
> atop pwm_get_state() as you describe earlier in the thread.
>
> * Document pwm_get_period() (and maybe other similar functions) as deprecated.
>
> * Fix drivers for all current 2 users of PWM regulator to support
> hardware readout.
>
> * Update PWM regulator as you described earlier in the thread (Feb 23).
>
> * If PWM regulator is ever used on a new board whose PWM doesn't
> support hardware readout, the voltage will change at probe time.
>
>
> Did I get all that right?  Thanks!

Can you provide a "yes, you got that right" or a "no, you didn't
understand"?  That will unblock Boris, I think.

-Doug

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1355292

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

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Thierry,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com> wrote:
> > So just to summarize:
> >
> > * Add pwm_get_state(), pwm_apply_state(), pwm_get_args().
> > pwm_get_state() initially returns 0 for duty cycle if driver doesn't
> > support readout.
> >
> > * Re-implement pwm_get_period() (and maybe other similar functions)
> > atop pwm_get_state() as you describe earlier in the thread.
> >
> > * Document pwm_get_period() (and maybe other similar functions) as deprecated.
> >
> > * Fix drivers for all current 2 users of PWM regulator to support
> > hardware readout.
> >
> > * Update PWM regulator as you described earlier in the thread (Feb 23).
> >
> > * If PWM regulator is ever used on a new board whose PWM doesn't
> > support hardware readout, the voltage will change at probe time.
> >
> >
> > Did I get all that right?  Thanks!
> 
> Can you provide a "yes, you got that right" or a "no, you didn't
> understand"?  That will unblock Boris, I think.

Sounds about right. Hopefully this will eliminate any objections that
others had about the series.

Thierry

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

#1355772

Hi Thierry,

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 18:54:38 +0100
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Thierry,
> > 
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com> wrote:
> > > So just to summarize:
> > >
> > > * Add pwm_get_state(), pwm_apply_state(), pwm_get_args().
> > > pwm_get_state() initially returns 0 for duty cycle if driver doesn't
> > > support readout.
> > >
> > > * Re-implement pwm_get_period() (and maybe other similar functions)
> > > atop pwm_get_state() as you describe earlier in the thread.
> > >
> > > * Document pwm_get_period() (and maybe other similar functions) as deprecated.
> > >
> > > * Fix drivers for all current 2 users of PWM regulator to support
> > > hardware readout.
> > >
> > > * Update PWM regulator as you described earlier in the thread (Feb 23).
> > >
> > > * If PWM regulator is ever used on a new board whose PWM doesn't
> > > support hardware readout, the voltage will change at probe time.
> > >
> > >
> > > Did I get all that right?  Thanks!
> > 
> > Can you provide a "yes, you got that right" or a "no, you didn't
> > understand"?  That will unblock Boris, I think.
> 
> Sounds about right. Hopefully this will eliminate any objections that
> others had about the series.

Okay, I'll rework the series accordingly and send a new version soon.

Thanks,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web