* [PATCH 1/5] pwm: sprd: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-01 8:27 [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-01 8:27 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] pwm: spear: " Uwe Kleine-König
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-01 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, Lee Jones
Cc: linux-pwm, kernel, Baolin Wang, Orson Zhai, Chunyan Zhang
As the last call to sprd_pwm_apply() might have exited early if
state->enabled was false, the values for period and duty_cycle stored in
pwm->state might not have been written to hardware and it must be
ensured that they are configured before enabling the PWM.
Fixes: 8aae4b02e8a6 ("pwm: sprd: Add Spreadtrum PWM support")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c | 11 ++++-------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c
index f2a85e8dd941..7004f55bbf11 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sprd.c
@@ -183,13 +183,10 @@ static int sprd_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
}
}
- if (state->period != cstate->period ||
- state->duty_cycle != cstate->duty_cycle) {
- ret = sprd_pwm_config(spc, pwm, state->duty_cycle,
- state->period);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
- }
+ ret = sprd_pwm_config(spc, pwm, state->duty_cycle,
+ state->period);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
sprd_pwm_write(spc, pwm->hwpwm, SPRD_PWM_ENABLE, 1);
} else if (cstate->enabled) {
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/5] pwm: spear: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-01 8:27 [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] pwm: sprd: " Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-01 8:27 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] pwm: tiecap: " Uwe Kleine-König
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-01 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, Lee Jones; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel
As the last call to spear_pwm_apply() might have exited early if
state->enabled was false, the values for period and duty_cycle stored in
pwm->state might not have been written to hardware and it must be
ensured that they are configured before enabling the PWM.
Fixes: 98761ce4b91b ("pwm: spear: Implement .apply() callback")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c
index 48c31dac2f32..54c7990967dd 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-spear.c
@@ -177,12 +177,9 @@ static int spear_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
return 0;
}
- if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
- state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
- err = spear_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
- if (err)
- return err;
- }
+ err = spear_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
if (!pwm->state.enabled)
return spear_pwm_enable(chip, pwm);
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/5] pwm: tiecap: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-01 8:27 [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] pwm: sprd: " Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] pwm: spear: " Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-01 8:27 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] pwm: berlin: " Uwe Kleine-König
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-01 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, Lee Jones; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel
As the last call to ecap_pwm_apply() might have exited early if
state->enabled was false, the values for period and duty_cycle stored in
pwm->state might not have been written to hardware and it must be
ensured that they are configured before enabling the PWM.
Fixes: 0ca7acd84766 ("pwm: tiecap: Implement .apply() callback")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c | 15 ++++++---------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c
index dec3f1fb150c..35eb19a5a0d1 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c
@@ -189,16 +189,13 @@ static int ecap_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
return 0;
}
- if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
- state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
- if (state->period > NSEC_PER_SEC)
- return -ERANGE;
+ if (state->period > NSEC_PER_SEC)
+ return -ERANGE;
- err = ecap_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle,
- state->period, enabled);
- if (err)
- return err;
- }
+ err = ecap_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle,
+ state->period, enabled);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
if (!enabled)
return ecap_pwm_enable(chip, pwm);
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4/5] pwm: berlin: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-01 8:27 [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped Uwe Kleine-König
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] pwm: tiecap: " Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-01 8:27 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] pwm: ep93xx: " Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-08 12:36 ` [PATCH 0/5] pwm: " Uwe Kleine-König
5 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-01 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, Lee Jones; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel, Thomas Hebb
As the last call to berlin_pwm_apply() might have exited early if
state->enabled was false, the values for period and duty_cycle stored in
pwm->state might not have been written to hardware and it must be
ensured that they are configured before enabling the PWM.
Fixes: 30dffb42fcd4 ("pwm: berlin: Implement .apply() callback")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-berlin.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-berlin.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-berlin.c
index 5537b5f6dd5d..e157273fd2f7 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-berlin.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-berlin.c
@@ -190,12 +190,9 @@ static int berlin_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
return 0;
}
- if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
- state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
- err = berlin_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
- if (err)
- return err;
- }
+ err = berlin_pwm_config(chip, pwm, state->duty_cycle, state->period);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
if (!enabled)
return berlin_pwm_enable(chip, pwm);
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 5/5] pwm: ep93xx: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-01 8:27 [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped Uwe Kleine-König
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] pwm: berlin: " Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-01 8:27 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-08 12:36 ` [PATCH 0/5] pwm: " Uwe Kleine-König
5 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-01 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, Lee Jones; +Cc: linux-pwm, kernel, Alexander Sverdlin
As the last call to ep93xx_pwm_apply() might have exited early if
state->enabled was false, the values for period and duty_cycle stored in
pwm->state might not have been written to hardware and it must be
ensured that they are configured before enabling the PWM.
Fixes: 6d45374af539 ("pwm: ep93xx: Implement .apply callback")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
---
drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
index 8a3d781e6514..fc3cb7d669c6 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-ep93xx.c
@@ -64,6 +64,11 @@ static int ep93xx_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
int ret;
struct ep93xx_pwm *ep93xx_pwm = to_ep93xx_pwm(chip);
bool enabled = state->enabled;
+ void __iomem *base = ep93xx_pwm->base;
+ unsigned long long c;
+ unsigned long period_cycles;
+ unsigned long duty_cycles;
+ unsigned long term;
if (state->polarity != pwm->state.polarity) {
if (enabled) {
@@ -97,57 +102,47 @@ static int ep93xx_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
return 0;
}
- if (state->period != pwm->state.period ||
- state->duty_cycle != pwm->state.duty_cycle) {
- struct ep93xx_pwm *ep93xx_pwm = to_ep93xx_pwm(chip);
- void __iomem *base = ep93xx_pwm->base;
- unsigned long long c;
- unsigned long period_cycles;
- unsigned long duty_cycles;
- unsigned long term;
+ /*
+ * The clock needs to be enabled to access the PWM registers.
+ * Configuration can be changed at any time.
+ */
+ if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(ep93xx_pwm->clk);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ }
- /*
- * The clock needs to be enabled to access the PWM registers.
- * Configuration can be changed at any time.
- */
- if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm)) {
- ret = clk_prepare_enable(ep93xx_pwm->clk);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
- }
+ c = clk_get_rate(ep93xx_pwm->clk);
+ c *= state->period;
+ do_div(c, 1000000000);
+ period_cycles = c;
+
+ c = period_cycles;
+ c *= state->duty_cycle;
+ do_div(c, state->period);
+ duty_cycles = c;
- c = clk_get_rate(ep93xx_pwm->clk);
- c *= state->period;
- do_div(c, 1000000000);
- period_cycles = c;
-
- c = period_cycles;
- c *= state->duty_cycle;
- do_div(c, state->period);
- duty_cycles = c;
-
- if (period_cycles < 0x10000 && duty_cycles < 0x10000) {
- term = readw(base + EP93XX_PWMx_TERM_COUNT);
-
- /* Order is important if PWM is running */
- if (period_cycles > term) {
- writew(period_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_TERM_COUNT);
- writew(duty_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_DUTY_CYCLE);
- } else {
- writew(duty_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_DUTY_CYCLE);
- writew(period_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_TERM_COUNT);
- }
- ret = 0;
+ if (period_cycles < 0x10000 && duty_cycles < 0x10000) {
+ term = readw(base + EP93XX_PWMx_TERM_COUNT);
+
+ /* Order is important if PWM is running */
+ if (period_cycles > term) {
+ writew(period_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_TERM_COUNT);
+ writew(duty_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_DUTY_CYCLE);
} else {
- ret = -EINVAL;
+ writew(duty_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_DUTY_CYCLE);
+ writew(period_cycles, base + EP93XX_PWMx_TERM_COUNT);
}
+ ret = 0;
+ } else {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ }
- if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
- clk_disable_unprepare(ep93xx_pwm->clk);
+ if (!pwm_is_enabled(pwm))
+ clk_disable_unprepare(ep93xx_pwm->clk);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
- }
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
if (!enabled) {
ret = clk_prepare_enable(ep93xx_pwm->clk);
--
2.30.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-01 8:27 [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped Uwe Kleine-König
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-01 8:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] pwm: ep93xx: " Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-08 12:36 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-08 14:07 ` Thierry Reding
5 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-08 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding, Lee Jones
Cc: linux-pwm, Uwe Kleine-König, Baolin Wang, Chunyan Zhang,
Thomas Hebb, kernel, Orson Zhai, Alexander Sverdlin
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 943 bytes --]
Hello Thierry,
On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven found a regression in one of my patches. The same
> problem exists in several further commits. The respective drivers are
> fixed in this series.
>
> The affected commits for the first patch is already in v5.4, so this
> patch should maybe backported to stable.
> The others are in Thierry's for-next branch only.
These four broken patches were now included in your pull request to
Linus for v5.14-rc1 but these fixes were not. I wonder that the
regression Geert reported made you back out the offending commit but you
didn't care for the four identical problems in pwm-spear, pwm-tiecap,
pwm-berlin and pwm-ep93xx. Did you miss this series?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-08 12:36 ` [PATCH 0/5] pwm: " Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-08 14:07 ` Thierry Reding
2021-07-08 20:36 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-14 6:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2021-07-08 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Uwe Kleine-König
Cc: Lee Jones, linux-pwm, Uwe Kleine-König, Baolin Wang,
Chunyan Zhang, Thomas Hebb, kernel, Orson Zhai,
Alexander Sverdlin
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1132 bytes --]
On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 02:36:39PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Thierry,
>
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Geert Uytterhoeven found a regression in one of my patches. The same
> > problem exists in several further commits. The respective drivers are
> > fixed in this series.
> >
> > The affected commits for the first patch is already in v5.4, so this
> > patch should maybe backported to stable.
> > The others are in Thierry's for-next branch only.
>
> These four broken patches were now included in your pull request to
> Linus for v5.14-rc1 but these fixes were not. I wonder that the
> regression Geert reported made you back out the offending commit but you
> didn't care for the four identical problems in pwm-spear, pwm-tiecap,
> pwm-berlin and pwm-ep93xx. Did you miss this series?
Ugh... this is a nice big mess now. In retrospect I should've just
backed out all those patches. Or rather not have applied them in the
first place until they got a Tested-by.
I'll pull in this series and will send this as a follow-up pull request.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-08 14:07 ` Thierry Reding
@ 2021-07-08 20:36 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-14 6:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-08 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding
Cc: linux-pwm, Uwe Kleine-König, Baolin Wang, Chunyan Zhang,
Alexander Sverdlin, Thomas Hebb, kernel, Orson Zhai, Lee Jones
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2736 bytes --]
Hello Thierry,
On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:07:14PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 02:36:39PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven found a regression in one of my patches. The same
> > > problem exists in several further commits. The respective drivers are
> > > fixed in this series.
> > >
> > > The affected commits for the first patch is already in v5.4, so this
> > > patch should maybe backported to stable.
> > > The others are in Thierry's for-next branch only.
> >
> > These four broken patches were now included in your pull request to
> > Linus for v5.14-rc1 but these fixes were not. I wonder that the
> > regression Geert reported made you back out the offending commit but you
> > didn't care for the four identical problems in pwm-spear, pwm-tiecap,
> > pwm-berlin and pwm-ep93xx. Did you miss this series?
>
> Ugh... this is a nice big mess now. In retrospect I should've just
> backed out all those patches. Or rather not have applied them in the
> first place until they got a Tested-by.
Agreed, this isn't as optimal as it could have been. My conclusions are
a bit different though. I took the time to look at the details for these
changes:
- 2021-04-11
I sent "pwm: Ensure for legacy drivers that pwm->state stays
consistent" to the linux-pwm list.
- 2021-06-27
The merge window for 5.14 opened
- 2021-06-28
You applied the patch, it then appeared in next-20210629 for the
first time in next.
- 2021-06-29
Geert reported the regression
- 2021-06-30
You dropped the commit.
- 2021-07-01
I sent a fixed patch and incremental fixes for the same problems in
the other drivers.
- 2021-07-08
Thierry sent a pull request containing the four broken (and unfixed)
commits.
For me the conclusions here are:
- Patches on the mailing list are not widely tested
(So I think waiting for Tested-bys isn't a pragmatic option unless
maybe we start adding more people to MAINTAINERS.)
- Changes in next get (some) testing.
And so I think changes should be put into next earlier than it was the
case in this release cycle and it might be beneficial to check for
unapplied fixes before sending out a PR. Feel free to communicate with
me before sending the next PR if there is something on my radar that is
missing in your for-next branch.
> I'll pull in this series and will send this as a follow-up pull request.
Great.
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-08 14:07 ` Thierry Reding
2021-07-08 20:36 ` Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-14 6:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-07-14 7:39 ` Thierry Reding
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2021-07-14 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thierry Reding
Cc: linux-pwm, Baolin Wang, Chunyan Zhang, Alexander Sverdlin,
Thomas Hebb, kernel, Orson Zhai, Lee Jones
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1854 bytes --]
Hello Thierry,
On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:07:14PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 02:36:39PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Thierry,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven found a regression in one of my patches. The same
> > > problem exists in several further commits. The respective drivers are
> > > fixed in this series.
> > >
> > > The affected commits for the first patch is already in v5.4, so this
> > > patch should maybe backported to stable.
> > > The others are in Thierry's for-next branch only.
> >
> > These four broken patches were now included in your pull request to
> > Linus for v5.14-rc1 but these fixes were not. I wonder that the
> > regression Geert reported made you back out the offending commit but you
> > didn't care for the four identical problems in pwm-spear, pwm-tiecap,
> > pwm-berlin and pwm-ep93xx. Did you miss this series?
>
> Ugh... this is a nice big mess now. In retrospect I should've just
> backed out all those patches. Or rather not have applied them in the
> first place until they got a Tested-by.
>
> I'll pull in this series and will send this as a follow-up pull request.
I saw you applied the series to your for-next branch, so next is fixed
since next-20210709. I wonder what makes you wait sending these to
Linus.
The facts are:
- Fixes were sent to the list on 2021-07-01
- next was broken since at least next-20210701 up to next-20210708
- linus/master is broken since v5.14-rc1~42 (2021-07-08) for ep93xx,
berlin, tiecap, spear and since v5.4-rc1~27 (2019-09-27) for sprd
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/5] pwm: Ensure configuring period and duty_cycle isn't wrongly skipped
2021-07-14 6:39 ` Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2021-07-14 7:39 ` Thierry Reding
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thierry Reding @ 2021-07-14 7:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Uwe Kleine-König
Cc: linux-pwm, Baolin Wang, Chunyan Zhang, Alexander Sverdlin,
Thomas Hebb, kernel, Orson Zhai, Lee Jones
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1775 bytes --]
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 08:39:01AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Thierry,
>
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:07:14PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 02:36:39PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Hello Thierry,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:27:50AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > Geert Uytterhoeven found a regression in one of my patches. The same
> > > > problem exists in several further commits. The respective drivers are
> > > > fixed in this series.
> > > >
> > > > The affected commits for the first patch is already in v5.4, so this
> > > > patch should maybe backported to stable.
> > > > The others are in Thierry's for-next branch only.
> > >
> > > These four broken patches were now included in your pull request to
> > > Linus for v5.14-rc1 but these fixes were not. I wonder that the
> > > regression Geert reported made you back out the offending commit but you
> > > didn't care for the four identical problems in pwm-spear, pwm-tiecap,
> > > pwm-berlin and pwm-ep93xx. Did you miss this series?
> >
> > Ugh... this is a nice big mess now. In retrospect I should've just
> > backed out all those patches. Or rather not have applied them in the
> > first place until they got a Tested-by.
> >
> > I'll pull in this series and will send this as a follow-up pull request.
>
> I saw you applied the series to your for-next branch, so next is fixed
> since next-20210709. I wonder what makes you wait sending these to
> Linus.
Given the mess that this caused I didn't feel comfortable pushing this
to Linus immediately and instead give people a bit of time to find any
potential issues in linux-next first.
I'm going to send the pull request later today.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread