From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941274AbcJXPgR (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:36:17 -0400 Received: from up.free-electrons.com ([163.172.77.33]:47230 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S938646AbcJXPgO (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:36:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:36:07 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Lukasz Majewski Cc: Thierry Reding , Stefan Agner , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fabio Estevam , Fabio Estevam , Lothar Wassmann , Bhuvanchandra DV , kernel@pengutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] pwm: imx: Provide atomic operation for IMX PWM driver Message-ID: <20161024173607.36bc2cb9@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <1477259146-19167-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@majess.pl> References: <1477259146-19167-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@majess.pl> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:40 +0200 Lukasz Majewski wrote: > This patch set brings atomic operation to i.MX's PWMv2 driver. > > This work has been supported and suggested by Boris Brezillon [1] and > Stefan Agner, by showing how simple the transition could be :-). > > It has been divided into several steps: > - Separate PWMv1 commits from "generic" and non atomic PWM code. > > NOTE: Since I do not have board with PWMv1, I would like to ask somebody > for testing > > - Move some imx_config_v2 code to separate functions > > - Provide PWM atomic implementation (the ->apply() driver) in a single patch > for better readability. > > - Remove redundant PWM code (disable, enable, config callbacks) > > - Clean up the driver infrastructure > > - Provide "polarity_supported" flag to indicate support for polarity > inversion > > This work should be applied on top of following commits: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679706/ > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679707/ > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679680/ I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Has patch [1] already been applied? If that's not the case, then you should just drop it and put your changes on top of mainline. [1]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679680/