Hi Bryan, Richard,
> On 01/30/2013 09:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:00:59PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
>>> Call to led_pwm_set() can happen inside atomic context, like triggers.
>>> If the PWM call can sleep, defer using a worker.
>>>
>>> Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 50
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>> 1 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> Bryan, I assume that you'll be taking this? It doesn't apply cleanly to
>> my tree, probably because of Peter's recent changes that you took
>> through your tree and Florian based his patches on top of that. The
>> conflict resolution should be trivial, though.
>>
>
> It seems that this patch was not taken. Could you pull it, as the other
> part is already in linux-pwm? Or is there any show stopper?
>
Ping? Who should merge this?
Many thanks!
Florian
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:44:22AM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> Hi Bryan, Richard,
>
> >On 01/30/2013 09:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:00:59PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
> >>>Call to led_pwm_set() can happen inside atomic context, like triggers.
> >>>If the PWM call can sleep, defer using a worker.
> >>>
> >>>Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <[email protected]>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <[email protected]>
> >>>---
> >>> drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 50
> >>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >>> 1 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>Bryan, I assume that you'll be taking this? It doesn't apply cleanly to
> >>my tree, probably because of Peter's recent changes that you took
> >>through your tree and Florian based his patches on top of that. The
> >>conflict resolution should be trivial, though.
> >>
> >
> >It seems that this patch was not taken. Could you pull it, as the other
> >part is already in linux-pwm? Or is there any show stopper?
> >
>
> Ping? Who should merge this?
I assume Bryan will take it through the LED tree? Patches 1 & 2 went
into v3.9-rc1 through the PWM tree.
Thierry
On 03/04/2013 11:58 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:44:22AM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
>> Hi Bryan, Richard,
>>
>>> On 01/30/2013 09:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:00:59PM +0100, Florian Vaussard wrote:
>>>>> Call to led_pwm_set() can happen inside atomic context, like triggers.
>>>>> If the PWM call can sleep, defer using a worker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <[email protected]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/leds/leds-pwm.c | 50
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>> 1 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Bryan, I assume that you'll be taking this? It doesn't apply cleanly to
>>>> my tree, probably because of Peter's recent changes that you took
>>>> through your tree and Florian based his patches on top of that. The
>>>> conflict resolution should be trivial, though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that this patch was not taken. Could you pull it, as the other
>>> part is already in linux-pwm? Or is there any show stopper?
>>>
>>
>> Ping? Who should merge this?
>
> I assume Bryan will take it through the LED tree? Patches 1 & 2 went
> into v3.9-rc1 through the PWM tree.
>
This was also my assumption, but I never got the feedback from Brian on
this patch.
The crach is still there, and the patch missed the merge window :)
Cheers,
Florian
Hi Bryan,
>>>>
>>>> Bryan, I assume that you'll be taking this? It doesn't apply cleanly to
>>>> my tree, probably because of Peter's recent changes that you took
>>>> through your tree and Florian based his patches on top of that. The
>>>> conflict resolution should be trivial, though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that this patch was not taken. Could you pull it, as the other
>>> part is already in linux-pwm? Or is there any show stopper?
>>>
>>
>> Ping? Who should merge this?
>
> I assume Bryan will take it through the LED tree? Patches 1 & 2 went
> into v3.9-rc1 through the PWM tree.
>
Ping ?
Florian
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Florian Vaussard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bryan, I assume that you'll be taking this? It doesn't apply cleanly to
>>>>> my tree, probably because of Peter's recent changes that you took
>>>>> through your tree and Florian based his patches on top of that. The
>>>>> conflict resolution should be trivial, though.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that this patch was not taken. Could you pull it, as the other
>>>> part is already in linux-pwm? Or is there any show stopper?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ping? Who should merge this?
>>
>>
>> I assume Bryan will take it through the LED tree? Patches 1 & 2 went
>> into v3.9-rc1 through the PWM tree.
>>
>
> Ping ?
>
Hi Florian and Thierry,
Sorry, guys. My bad! I'm using GMAIL filtering my emails. This email
goes into my arm-linux mail list archive and I totally missed it.
I can merge this patch into my for-next branch, but it will be in 3.10
not 3.9-rcX.
Or Thierry, can you merge that to 3.9-rcX through your tree with my Ack?
Thanks,
-Bryan
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:08:57AM -0700, Bryan Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Florian Vaussard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Bryan,
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bryan, I assume that you'll be taking this? It doesn't apply cleanly to
> >>>>> my tree, probably because of Peter's recent changes that you took
> >>>>> through your tree and Florian based his patches on top of that. The
> >>>>> conflict resolution should be trivial, though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems that this patch was not taken. Could you pull it, as the other
> >>>> part is already in linux-pwm? Or is there any show stopper?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ping? Who should merge this?
> >>
> >>
> >> I assume Bryan will take it through the LED tree? Patches 1 & 2 went
> >> into v3.9-rc1 through the PWM tree.
> >>
> >
> > Ping ?
> >
>
> Hi Florian and Thierry,
>
> Sorry, guys. My bad! I'm using GMAIL filtering my emails. This email
> goes into my arm-linux mail list archive and I totally missed it.
>
> I can merge this patch into my for-next branch, but it will be in 3.10
> not 3.9-rcX.
>
> Or Thierry, can you merge that to 3.9-rcX through your tree with my Ack?
I think 3.10 would be fine. We missed the merge window on this one and
it isn't really a fix so it's a bit late for 3.9 now.
If Florian really absolutely needs this it can probably be done, but if
he can wait another few weeks it's certainly worth taking it through
linux-next for a while just to be safe.
Thierry
Hi,
On 03/15/2013 07:59 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>
>> Hi Florian and Thierry,
>>
>> Sorry, guys. My bad! I'm using GMAIL filtering my emails. This email
>> goes into my arm-linux mail list archive and I totally missed it.
>>
>> I can merge this patch into my for-next branch, but it will be in 3.10
>> not 3.9-rcX.
>>
>> Or Thierry, can you merge that to 3.9-rcX through your tree with my Ack?
>
> I think 3.10 would be fine. We missed the merge window on this one and
> it isn't really a fix so it's a bit late for 3.9 now.
>
> If Florian really absolutely needs this it can probably be done, but if
> he can wait another few weeks it's certainly worth taking it through
> linux-next for a while just to be safe.
>
I agree, another few weeks is not a problem :) Bryan, I let you merge
this, ok?
Thank you,
Florian
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Florian Vaussard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 03/15/2013 07:59 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Florian and Thierry,
>>>
>>> Sorry, guys. My bad! I'm using GMAIL filtering my emails. This email
>>> goes into my arm-linux mail list archive and I totally missed it.
>>>
>>> I can merge this patch into my for-next branch, but it will be in 3.10
>>> not 3.9-rcX.
>>>
>>> Or Thierry, can you merge that to 3.9-rcX through your tree with my Ack?
>>
>>
>> I think 3.10 would be fine. We missed the merge window on this one and
>> it isn't really a fix so it's a bit late for 3.9 now.
>>
>> If Florian really absolutely needs this it can probably be done, but if
>> he can wait another few weeks it's certainly worth taking it through
>> linux-next for a while just to be safe.
>>
>
> I agree, another few weeks is not a problem :) Bryan, I let you merge this,
> ok?
>
Cool, I merged it into my for-next branch and it will be in linux-next soon.
Thanks,
-Bryan