Hello Thierry,

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:16:03PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 08:18:04AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 03:25:35PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Instead of allocating extra data in .request() provide the needed memory
> > > in struct berlin_pwm_chip. This reduces the number of allocations. A side
> > > effect is that on suspend and resume the state for all four channels is
> > > always saved and restored. This is easier (and probably quicker) than
> > > looking up the matching pwm_device and checking its PWMF_REQUESTED bit.
> > 
> > I noticed you applied the other three patches in this series, but
> > skipped this one and marked it as rejected.
> > 
> > Please point out what you don't like about this patch instead of just
> > dropping it without comment.
> 
> Any news on this? I still consider the patch good and would like to know
> your objections.

This patch is still in my private working copy and I still don't know
why you rejected it. :-\

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |