2016-03-07 16:34:29

by Doug Anderson

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

Thierry,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> 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


2016-03-10 17:55:02

by Thierry Reding

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

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 <[email protected]> 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


Attachments:
(No filename) (1.13 kB)
signature.asc (819.00 B)
Download all attachments

2016-03-11 09:52:01

by Boris Brezillon

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

Hi Thierry,

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 18:54:38 +0100
Thierry Reding <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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