From: "Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>
To: caesar <caesar.wang@rock-chips.com>
Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, b.galvani@gmail.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cf@rock-chips.com,
huangtao@rock-chips.com, hj@rock-chips.com, xjq@rock-chips.com,
addy.ke@rock-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:05:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1949437.1N5XrQ9a4Y@diego> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53D06BE3.7010509@rock-chips.com>
Hi caesar.
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014, 10:13:55 schrieb caesar:
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable) +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >
> > not sure if I'm just blind ... do rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 and
> > rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop differ at all?
> >
> > If they don't differ, I guess pwm_data_vop should just use
> > rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 instead of duplicating it.
> >
>
> Yes, the rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1 & v2 & vop is similar.
>
> So my v2 patch use "u32 enable_conf" instead of it .
> +struct rockchip_pwm_data {
>
> > + .........
> > + u32 enable_conf;
> > +};
>
> The thierry has suggested it [1] in my v2 patch:
>
> For this I think it would be more readable to provide function pointers
> rather than a variable. That is:
>
> struct rockchip_pwm_data {
> ...
> int (*enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> int (*disable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> };
> Then you can implement these for each variant of the chip and call them
> from the common rockchip_pwm_enable(), somewhat like this.
>
>
> Perhaps,thierry's suggestion I got it wrong.
Using the function pointers like Thierry suggested looks nice, so no I don't
think you got it wrong :-)
What I meant was to simply reuse the existing function
rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 when there is _no_ difference at all to
rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop, like
static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};
static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
.regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
.regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};
Heiko
>
> Hi thierry& Heiko :-)
> Maybe,could you suggest solve it reasonable? thanks.
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113
>
> >> +
> >>
> >> static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device
> >>
> >> *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> @@ -52,20 +126,20 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm, * default prescaler value for all practical clock
> >> rate values.
> >>
> >> */
> >>
> >> div = clk_rate * period_ns;
> >>
> >> - do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >> + do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >>
> >> period = div;
> >>
> >> div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
> >>
> >> - do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >> + do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >>
> >> duty = div;
> >>
> >> ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> >> if (ret)
> >>
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - writel(period, pc->base + PWM_LRC);
> >> - writel(duty, pc->base + PWM_HRC);
> >> - writel(0, pc->base + PWM_CNTR);
> >> + writel(period, pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
> >> + writel(duty, pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
> >> + writel(0, pc->base + pc->data->regs.cntr);
> >>
> >> clk_disable(pc->clk);
> >>
> >> @@ -76,15 +150,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm) {
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> - u32 val;
> >>
> >> ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> >> if (ret)
> >>
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> - val |= PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> >> - writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> + pc->data->set_enable(chip, true);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -92,11 +163,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm) static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) {
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >>
> >> - u32 val;
> >>
> >> - val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> - val &= ~(PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN);
> >> - writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> + pc->data->set_enable(chip, false);
> >>
> >> clk_disable(pc->clk);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -108,12 +176,52 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
> >>
> >> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v1},
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v2},
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_vop},
> >> + { /* sentinel */ }
> >> +};
> >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
> >> +
> >>
> >> static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> {
> >>
> >> + const struct of_device_id *id;
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
> >> struct resource *r;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> + id = of_match_device(rockchip_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> >> + if (!id)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >>
> >> pc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> if (!pc)
> >>
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> @@ -133,6 +241,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >>
> >> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
> >>
> >> + pc->data = id->data;
> >>
> >> pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> >> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
> >> pc->chip.base = -1;
> >>
> >> @@ -156,12 +265,6 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_remove(struct
> >> platform_device
> >> *pdev) return pwmchip_remove(&pc->chip);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> >> - { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm" },
> >> - { /* sentinel */ }
> >> -};
> >> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
> >> -
> >>
> >> static struct platform_driver rockchip_pwm_driver = {
> >>
> >> .driver = {
> >>
> >> .name = "rockchip-pwm",
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: heiko@sntech.de (Heiko Stübner)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:05:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1949437.1N5XrQ9a4Y@diego> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53D06BE3.7010509@rock-chips.com>
Hi caesar.
Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014, 10:13:55 schrieb caesar:
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop(struct pwm_chip *chip, bool
> >> enable) +{
> >> + struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> + u32 val = 0;
> >> + u32 enable_conf = PWM_OUTPUT_LEFT | PWM_LP_DISABLE | PWM_ENABLE |
> >> + PWM_CONTINUOUS | PWM_DUTY_POSITIVE | PWM_INACTIVE_NEGATIVE;
> >> +
> >> + val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +
> >> + if (enable)
> >> + val |= enable_conf;
> >> + else
> >> + val &= ~enable_conf;
> >> +
> >> + writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + pc->data->regs.ctrl);
> >> +}
> >
> > not sure if I'm just blind ... do rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 and
> > rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop differ at all?
> >
> > If they don't differ, I guess pwm_data_vop should just use
> > rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 instead of duplicating it.
> >
>
> Yes, the rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1 & v2 & vop is similar.
>
> So my v2 patch use "u32 enable_conf" instead of it .
> +struct rockchip_pwm_data {
>
> > + .........
> > + u32 enable_conf;
> > +};
>
> The thierry has suggested it [1] in my v2 patch:
>
> For this I think it would be more readable to provide function pointers
> rather than a variable. That is:
>
> struct rockchip_pwm_data {
> ...
> int (*enable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> int (*disable)(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm);
> };
> Then you can implement these for each variant of the chip and call them
> from the common rockchip_pwm_enable(), somewhat like this.
>
>
> Perhaps,thierry's suggestion I got it wrong.
Using the function pointers like Thierry suggested looks nice, so no I don't
think you got it wrong :-)
What I meant was to simply reuse the existing function
rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2 when there is _no_ difference at all to
rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop, like
static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
.regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
.regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};
static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
.regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
.regs.period = PWM_HRC,
.regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
.regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
.prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
.set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
};
Heiko
>
> Hi thierry& Heiko :-)
> Maybe,could you suggest solve it reasonable? thanks.
>
> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/113
>
> >> +
> >>
> >> static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device
> >>
> >> *pwm, int duty_ns, int period_ns)
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> @@ -52,20 +126,20 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_config(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm, * default prescaler value for all practical clock
> >> rate values.
> >>
> >> */
> >>
> >> div = clk_rate * period_ns;
> >>
> >> - do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >> + do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >>
> >> period = div;
> >>
> >> div = clk_rate * duty_ns;
> >>
> >> - do_div(div, PRESCALER * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >> + do_div(div, pc->data->prescaler * NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >>
> >> duty = div;
> >>
> >> ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> >> if (ret)
> >>
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - writel(period, pc->base + PWM_LRC);
> >> - writel(duty, pc->base + PWM_HRC);
> >> - writel(0, pc->base + PWM_CNTR);
> >> + writel(period, pc->base + pc->data->regs.period);
> >> + writel(duty, pc->base + pc->data->regs.duty);
> >> + writel(0, pc->base + pc->data->regs.cntr);
> >>
> >> clk_disable(pc->clk);
> >>
> >> @@ -76,15 +150,12 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm) {
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> - u32 val;
> >>
> >> ret = clk_enable(pc->clk);
> >> if (ret)
> >>
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> - val |= PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN;
> >> - writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> + pc->data->set_enable(chip, true);
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -92,11 +163,8 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip,
> >> struct pwm_device *pwm) static void rockchip_pwm_disable(struct pwm_chip
> >> *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm) {
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc = to_rockchip_pwm_chip(chip);
> >>
> >> - u32 val;
> >>
> >> - val = readl_relaxed(pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> - val &= ~(PWM_CTRL_OUTPUT_EN | PWM_CTRL_TIMER_EN);
> >> - writel_relaxed(val, pc->base + PWM_CTRL);
> >> + pc->data->set_enable(chip, false);
> >>
> >> clk_disable(pc->clk);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -108,12 +176,52 @@ static const struct pwm_ops rockchip_pwm_ops = {
> >>
> >> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v1 = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v1,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_v2 = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_v2,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pwm_data pwm_data_vop = {
> >> + .regs.duty = PWM_LRC,
> >> + .regs.period = PWM_HRC,
> >> + .regs.cntr = PWM_CTRL,
> >> + .regs.ctrl = PWM_CNTR,
> >> + .prescaler = PRESCALER-1,
> >> + .set_enable = rockchip_pwm_set_enable_vop,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v1},
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_v2},
> >> + { .compatible = "rockchip,vop-pwm", .data = &pwm_data_vop},
> >> + { /* sentinel */ }
> >> +};
> >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
> >> +
> >>
> >> static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> {
> >>
> >> + const struct of_device_id *id;
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pwm_chip *pc;
> >> struct resource *r;
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> + id = of_match_device(rockchip_pwm_dt_ids, &pdev->dev);
> >> + if (!id)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >>
> >> pc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> if (!pc)
> >>
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> @@ -133,6 +241,7 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_probe(struct platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >>
> >> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pc);
> >>
> >> + pc->data = id->data;
> >>
> >> pc->chip.dev = &pdev->dev;
> >> pc->chip.ops = &rockchip_pwm_ops;
> >> pc->chip.base = -1;
> >>
> >> @@ -156,12 +265,6 @@ static int rockchip_pwm_remove(struct
> >> platform_device
> >> *pdev) return pwmchip_remove(&pc->chip);
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> >> - { .compatible = "rockchip,rk2928-pwm" },
> >> - { /* sentinel */ }
> >> -};
> >> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_pwm_dt_ids);
> >> -
> >>
> >> static struct platform_driver rockchip_pwm_driver = {
> >>
> >> .driver = {
> >>
> >> .name = "rockchip-pwm",
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-24 8:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-23 6:38 [PATCH v3 0/2] This series adds support for RK3288 SoC integrated PWM Caesar Wang
2014-07-23 6:38 ` Caesar Wang
2014-07-23 6:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] pwm: rockchip: document RK3288 SoC compatible Caesar Wang
2014-07-23 6:38 ` Caesar Wang
2014-07-23 6:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: rockchip: Added to support for RK3288 SoC Caesar Wang
2014-07-23 6:38 ` Caesar Wang
2014-07-23 16:01 ` Heiko Stübner
2014-07-23 16:01 ` Heiko Stübner
2014-07-24 2:13 ` caesar
2014-07-24 2:13 ` caesar
2014-07-24 8:05 ` Heiko Stübner [this message]
2014-07-24 8:05 ` Heiko Stübner
2014-07-24 9:29 ` caesar
2014-07-24 9:29 ` caesar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1949437.1N5XrQ9a4Y@diego \
--to=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=addy.ke@rock-chips.com \
--cc=b.galvani@gmail.com \
--cc=caesar.wang@rock-chips.com \
--cc=cf@rock-chips.com \
--cc=hj@rock-chips.com \
--cc=huangtao@rock-chips.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=xjq@rock-chips.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.