* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-05-17 9:12 ` Boris Brezillon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, linux-pwm
Cc: Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Alexandre Belloni, linux-arm-kernel, Boris Brezillon
The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
the case.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
index f994c7e..14fc011 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static int atmel_hlcdc_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
chip->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
chip->chip.can_sleep = 1;
- ret = pwmchip_add(&chip->chip);
+ ret = pwmchip_add_with_polarity(&chip->chip, PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED);
if (ret) {
clk_disable_unprepare(hlcdc->periph_clk);
return ret;
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-05-17 9:12 ` Boris Brezillon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
the case.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
index f994c7e..14fc011 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-hlcdc.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static int atmel_hlcdc_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
chip->chip.of_pwm_n_cells = 3;
chip->chip.can_sleep = 1;
- ret = pwmchip_add(&chip->chip);
+ ret = pwmchip_add_with_polarity(&chip->chip, PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED);
if (ret) {
clk_disable_unprepare(hlcdc->periph_clk);
return ret;
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
2016-05-17 9:12 ` Boris Brezillon
@ 2016-05-17 11:00 ` Thierry Reding
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2016-05-17 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boris Brezillon
Cc: linux-pwm, Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Alexandre Belloni, linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1020 bytes --]
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> the case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
way things should all stay bisectible.
Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
can't rebase.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-05-17 11:00 ` Thierry Reding
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2016-05-17 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> the case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
way things should all stay bisectible.
Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
can't rebase.
Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160517/ed5f4534/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
2016-05-17 11:00 ` Thierry Reding
@ 2016-05-17 11:04 ` Boris Brezillon
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding
Cc: linux-pwm, Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Alexandre Belloni, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > the case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
>
> That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> bug. The core change merely exposes it.
Agree.
> How about if I sort this into
> the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> way things should all stay bisectible.
As you wish.
>
> Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> can't rebase.
Yep, I know :-(.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-05-17 11:04 ` Boris Brezillon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > the case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
>
> That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> bug. The core change merely exposes it.
Agree.
> How about if I sort this into
> the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> way things should all stay bisectible.
As you wish.
>
> Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> can't rebase.
Yep, I know :-(.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
2016-05-17 11:00 ` Thierry Reding
@ 2016-05-17 12:08 ` Boris Brezillon
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding
Cc: linux-pwm, Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Alexandre Belloni, linux-arm-kernel
Hi Thierry,
On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > the case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
>
> That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> way things should all stay bisectible.
>
> Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> can't rebase.
If I understood correctly, you plan to rebase your pwm-atomic branch to
insert this commit before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
infrastructure to allow atomic updates").
Could you consider taking the following commit (or something similar if
you already have a fix) as the first commit of your pwm-atomic branch?
Sorry for the mess around the introduction of pwm_args and pwm_state
(that's not an excuse, but I've reworked this series so many time that I
forgot to check bisectibility on the last versions :-().
---
From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
after initializing pwm->args field.
This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
---
drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 680fbc7..22cf395 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -128,13 +128,6 @@ static int pwm_device_request(struct pwm_device *pwm, const char *label)
set_bit(PWMF_REQUESTED, &pwm->flags);
pwm->label = label;
- /*
- * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
- * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
- * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
- */
- pwm_apply_args(pwm);
-
return 0;
}
@@ -627,6 +620,13 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id)
pwm->label = con_id;
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
put:
of_node_put(args.np);
@@ -754,13 +754,20 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
if (!chip)
goto out;
- pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
- pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
-
pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(chip, chosen->index, con_id ?: dev_id);
if (IS_ERR(pwm))
goto out;
+ pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
+ pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
+
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
out:
mutex_unlock(&pwm_lookup_lock);
return pwm;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-05-17 12:08 ` Boris Brezillon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Thierry,
On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > the case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
>
> That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> way things should all stay bisectible.
>
> Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> can't rebase.
If I understood correctly, you plan to rebase your pwm-atomic branch to
insert this commit before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
infrastructure to allow atomic updates").
Could you consider taking the following commit (or something similar if
you already have a fix) as the first commit of your pwm-atomic branch?
Sorry for the mess around the introduction of pwm_args and pwm_state
(that's not an excuse, but I've reworked this series so many time that I
forgot to check bisectibility on the last versions :-().
---
>From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
after initializing pwm->args field.
This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
---
drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 680fbc7..22cf395 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -128,13 +128,6 @@ static int pwm_device_request(struct pwm_device *pwm, const char *label)
set_bit(PWMF_REQUESTED, &pwm->flags);
pwm->label = label;
- /*
- * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
- * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
- * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
- */
- pwm_apply_args(pwm);
-
return 0;
}
@@ -627,6 +620,13 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id)
pwm->label = con_id;
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
put:
of_node_put(args.np);
@@ -754,13 +754,20 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
if (!chip)
goto out;
- pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
- pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
-
pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(chip, chosen->index, con_id ?: dev_id);
if (IS_ERR(pwm))
goto out;
+ pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
+ pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
+
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
out:
mutex_unlock(&pwm_lookup_lock);
return pwm;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
2016-05-17 12:08 ` Boris Brezillon
@ 2016-05-17 12:19 ` Thierry Reding
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2016-05-17 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boris Brezillon
Cc: linux-pwm, Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Alexandre Belloni, linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3490 bytes --]
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:08:03PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > > the case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
> >
> > That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> > bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> > the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> > way things should all stay bisectible.
> >
> > Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> > it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> > can't rebase.
>
> If I understood correctly, you plan to rebase your pwm-atomic branch to
> insert this commit before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> infrastructure to allow atomic updates").
>
> Could you consider taking the following commit (or something similar if
> you already have a fix) as the first commit of your pwm-atomic branch?
>
> Sorry for the mess around the introduction of pwm_args and pwm_state
> (that's not an excuse, but I've reworked this series so many time that I
> forgot to check bisectibility on the last versions :-().
>
> ---
> From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
>
> pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
> arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
> called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
> core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
>
> Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
> after initializing pwm->args field.
>
> This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
> commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
> ---
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
This looks good to me. However I can't easily apply this because git
gets confused by the existing headers. Also manually copying out the
patch yields patch corruption that I don't exactly know how to fix.
I think you can inline patches by using a scissor mark (--- >8 ---)
instead of the signature separator (---). Or you can attach the patch
with "Content-Disposition: inline".
Rather than putting this into the pwm-atomic branch, I'll probably stick
it into the pwm-args branch on top of the existing patch. Technically
only the existing patch needs to be stable, so the branch can still
evolve.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-05-17 12:19 ` Thierry Reding
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2016-05-17 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:08:03PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > > the case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
> >
> > That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> > bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> > the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> > way things should all stay bisectible.
> >
> > Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> > it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> > can't rebase.
>
> If I understood correctly, you plan to rebase your pwm-atomic branch to
> insert this commit before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> infrastructure to allow atomic updates").
>
> Could you consider taking the following commit (or something similar if
> you already have a fix) as the first commit of your pwm-atomic branch?
>
> Sorry for the mess around the introduction of pwm_args and pwm_state
> (that's not an excuse, but I've reworked this series so many time that I
> forgot to check bisectibility on the last versions :-().
>
> ---
> From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
>
> pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
> arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
> called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
> core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
>
> Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
> after initializing pwm->args field.
>
> This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
> commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
> ---
> drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
This looks good to me. However I can't easily apply this because git
gets confused by the existing headers. Also manually copying out the
patch yields patch corruption that I don't exactly know how to fix.
I think you can inline patches by using a scissor mark (--- >8 ---)
instead of the signature separator (---). Or you can attach the patch
with "Content-Disposition: inline".
Rather than putting this into the pwm-atomic branch, I'll probably stick
it into the pwm-args branch on top of the existing patch. Technically
only the existing patch needs to be stable, so the branch can still
evolve.
Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160517/596c6957/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
2016-05-17 12:19 ` Thierry Reding
@ 2016-05-17 12:27 ` Boris Brezillon
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, linux-pwm, Alexandre Belloni
Cc: Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 17 May 2016 14:19:17 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:08:03PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
> > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > > > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > > > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > > > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > > > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > > > the case.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
> > >
> > > That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> > > bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> > > the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> > > way things should all stay bisectible.
> > >
> > > Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> > > it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> > > can't rebase.
> >
> > If I understood correctly, you plan to rebase your pwm-atomic branch to
> > insert this commit before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates").
> >
> > Could you consider taking the following commit (or something similar if
> > you already have a fix) as the first commit of your pwm-atomic branch?
> >
> > Sorry for the mess around the introduction of pwm_args and pwm_state
> > (that's not an excuse, but I've reworked this series so many time that I
> > forgot to check bisectibility on the last versions :-().
> >
> > ---
> > From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
> >
> > pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
> > arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
> > called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
> > core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
> >
> > Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
> > after initializing pwm->args field.
> >
> > This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
> > commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> This looks good to me. However I can't easily apply this because git
> gets confused by the existing headers. Also manually copying out the
> patch yields patch corruption that I don't exactly know how to fix.
>
> I think you can inline patches by using a scissor mark (--- >8 ---)
> instead of the signature separator (---). Or you can attach the patch
> with "Content-Disposition: inline".
Ok, it's my PEBKAC day. Here it is with the scissor mark. As mentioned
on IRC, you'll also have to squash those changes [1] into 93c0d9b
("pwm: Keep PWM state in sync with hardware state").
>
> Rather than putting this into the pwm-atomic branch, I'll probably stick
> it into the pwm-args branch on top of the existing patch. Technically
> only the existing patch needs to be stable, so the branch can still
> evolve.
Ok, great!
Thanks,
Boris
[1]http://code.bulix.org/egoo4y-98645
--->8---
From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
after initializing pwm->args field.
This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
---
drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 680fbc7..22cf395 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -128,13 +128,6 @@ static int pwm_device_request(struct pwm_device *pwm, const char *label)
set_bit(PWMF_REQUESTED, &pwm->flags);
pwm->label = label;
- /*
- * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
- * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
- * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
- */
- pwm_apply_args(pwm);
-
return 0;
}
@@ -627,6 +620,13 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id)
pwm->label = con_id;
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
put:
of_node_put(args.np);
@@ -754,13 +754,20 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
if (!chip)
goto out;
- pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
- pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
-
pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(chip, chosen->index, con_id ?: dev_id);
if (IS_ERR(pwm))
goto out;
+ pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
+ pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
+
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
out:
mutex_unlock(&pwm_lookup_lock);
return pwm;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-05-17 12:27 ` Boris Brezillon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-05-17 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 17 May 2016 14:19:17 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:08:03PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
> > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > > > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > > > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > > > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > > > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > > > the case.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
> > >
> > > That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> > > bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> > > the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> > > way things should all stay bisectible.
> > >
> > > Then again, given the breakage caused by the pwm_args patch I suppose
> > > it doesn't matter much because that's part of a stable branch that I
> > > can't rebase.
> >
> > If I understood correctly, you plan to rebase your pwm-atomic branch to
> > insert this commit before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates").
> >
> > Could you consider taking the following commit (or something similar if
> > you already have a fix) as the first commit of your pwm-atomic branch?
> >
> > Sorry for the mess around the introduction of pwm_args and pwm_state
> > (that's not an excuse, but I've reworked this series so many time that I
> > forgot to check bisectibility on the last versions :-().
> >
> > ---
> > From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
> >
> > pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
> > arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
> > called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
> > core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
> >
> > Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
> > after initializing pwm->args field.
> >
> > This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
> > commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
> > ---
> > drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> This looks good to me. However I can't easily apply this because git
> gets confused by the existing headers. Also manually copying out the
> patch yields patch corruption that I don't exactly know how to fix.
>
> I think you can inline patches by using a scissor mark (--- >8 ---)
> instead of the signature separator (---). Or you can attach the patch
> with "Content-Disposition: inline".
Ok, it's my PEBKAC day. Here it is with the scissor mark. As mentioned
on IRC, you'll also have to squash those changes [1] into 93c0d9b
("pwm: Keep PWM state in sync with hardware state").
>
> Rather than putting this into the pwm-atomic branch, I'll probably stick
> it into the pwm-args branch on top of the existing patch. Technically
> only the existing patch needs to be stable, so the branch can still
> evolve.
Ok, great!
Thanks,
Boris
[1]http://code.bulix.org/egoo4y-98645
--->8---
>From ad73fa3a56c7320979425d64ab54c09b9d83d4cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] pwm: Fix pwm_apply_args() call sites
pwm_apply_args() is supposed to initialize a PWM device according to the
arguments provided by the DT or the PWM lookup, but this function was
called inside pwm_device_request(), which in turn was called before the
core had a chance to initialize the pwm->args fields.
Fix that by calling pwm_apply_args directly in pwm_get() and of_pwm_get()
after initializing pwm->args field.
This commit also fixes an invalid pointer dereference introduced by
commit e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept").
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Fixes: e39c0df1be5a ("pwm: Introduce the pwm_args concept")
---
drivers/pwm/core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
index 680fbc7..22cf395 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
@@ -128,13 +128,6 @@ static int pwm_device_request(struct pwm_device *pwm, const char *label)
set_bit(PWMF_REQUESTED, &pwm->flags);
pwm->label = label;
- /*
- * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
- * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
- * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
- */
- pwm_apply_args(pwm);
-
return 0;
}
@@ -627,6 +620,13 @@ struct pwm_device *of_pwm_get(struct device_node *np, const char *con_id)
pwm->label = con_id;
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
put:
of_node_put(args.np);
@@ -754,13 +754,20 @@ struct pwm_device *pwm_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
if (!chip)
goto out;
- pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
- pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
-
pwm = pwm_request_from_chip(chip, chosen->index, con_id ?: dev_id);
if (IS_ERR(pwm))
goto out;
+ pwm->args.period = chosen->period;
+ pwm->args.polarity = chosen->polarity;
+
+ /*
+ * FIXME: This should be removed once all PWM users properly make use
+ * of struct pwm_args to initialize the PWM device. As long as this is
+ * here, the PWM state and hardware state can get out of sync.
+ */
+ pwm_apply_args(pwm);
+
out:
mutex_unlock(&pwm_lookup_lock);
return pwm;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
2016-05-17 11:00 ` Thierry Reding
@ 2016-06-14 7:58 ` Boris Brezillon
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-06-14 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding
Cc: linux-pwm, Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Alexandre Belloni, linux-arm-kernel
Hi Thierry,
On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > the case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
>
> That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> way things should all stay bisectible.
I don't see this change in your branch. Do you want me to resend this
fix after reworking the commit message?
Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-06-14 7:58 ` Boris Brezillon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Boris Brezillon @ 2016-06-14 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Thierry,
On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > the case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
>
> That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> way things should all stay bisectible.
I don't see this change in your branch. Do you want me to resend this
fix after reworking the commit message?
Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
2016-06-14 7:58 ` Boris Brezillon
@ 2016-06-14 8:55 ` Thierry Reding
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2016-06-14 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Boris Brezillon
Cc: linux-pwm, Nicolas Ferre, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard,
Alexandre Belloni, linux-arm-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1352 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:58:26AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > > the case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
> >
> > That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> > bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> > the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> > way things should all stay bisectible.
>
> I don't see this change in your branch. Do you want me to resend this
> fix after reworking the commit message?
I must have forgotten about it. I've applied it to my fixes branch now,
for which I plan on sending a pull request tomorrow.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity
@ 2016-06-14 8:55 ` Thierry Reding
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2016-06-14 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:58:26AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2016 13:00:05 +0200
> Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:12:32AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > The PWM device exposed by the HLCDC IP is configured with an inverted
> > > polarity by default. Registering the PWM chip with the normal polarity
> > > was not a problem before commit 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core
> > > infrastructure to allow atomic updates") because the ->set_polarity()
> > > hook was called no matter the current polarity state, but this is no longer
> > > the case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > Fixes: 42e8992c58d4 ("pwm: Add core infrastructure to allow atomic updates")
> >
> > That's not technically correct, because it's the driver that has the
> > bug. The core change merely exposes it. How about if I sort this into
> > the pwm-atomic branch and reword the commit message accordingly? That
> > way things should all stay bisectible.
>
> I don't see this change in your branch. Do you want me to resend this
> fix after reworking the commit message?
I must have forgotten about it. I've applied it to my fixes branch now,
for which I plan on sending a pull request tomorrow.
Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160614/825f6223/attachment-0001.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-14 8:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-05-17 9:12 [PATCH] pwm: atmel-hlcdc: Fix default PWM polarity Boris Brezillon
2016-05-17 9:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-05-17 11:00 ` Thierry Reding
2016-05-17 11:00 ` Thierry Reding
2016-05-17 11:04 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-05-17 11:04 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-05-17 12:08 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-05-17 12:08 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-05-17 12:19 ` Thierry Reding
2016-05-17 12:19 ` Thierry Reding
2016-05-17 12:27 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-05-17 12:27 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-14 7:58 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-14 7:58 ` Boris Brezillon
2016-06-14 8:55 ` Thierry Reding
2016-06-14 8:55 ` Thierry Reding
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.