From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de (metis.ext.pengutronix.de [85.220.165.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1ED12FB2 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:25:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ptx.hi.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:100:1d::c0]) by metis.ext.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lwpaA-0003PI-LO; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:25:34 +0200 Received: from ukl by ptx.hi.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lwpa7-0005jr-Px; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:25:31 +0200 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:25:31 +0200 From: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= To: Roman Beranek Cc: Thierry Reding , Emil Lenngren , Lee Jones , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Jernej Skrabec , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Roman Beranek , Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: sun4i: Avoid waiting until the next period Message-ID: <20210625172531.ikrds7uxakuocn5h@pengutronix.de> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aszybtxybgdwzbnh" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:67c:670:100:1d::c0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev --aszybtxybgdwzbnh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Roman, On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 02:10:35PM +0200, Roman Beranek wrote: > On Tue May 25, 2021 at 6:41 PM CEST, Thierry Reding wrote: > > I'm pretty sure Alexandre at the time reported that the instantiation of > > the controller that he was using required waiting for the period to > > complete before the output went to the disabled state. It's possible > > that this was changed in subsequent versions of the IP, so perhaps we > > need to distinguish based on compatible string? >=20 > I've got myself an A10 (sun4i) board to test my new patchset with and > indeed the 2 cycles seem to be enough. >=20 > I have yet to write a cover letter for it though, expect it by Monday > at the latest. You didn't send an update here (or did I miss it?). Still I think it's correct that the patch we're discussion here is not suiteable to be merged as is and so I marked the patch as "Changes Requested" in patchwork. Please speak up if you think that's wrong. Best regards Uwe --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | --aszybtxybgdwzbnh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEfnIqFpAYrP8+dKQLwfwUeK3K7AkFAmDWEYgACgkQwfwUeK3K 7AnQdwf/cYHxrf6a1yeNbbW6hlzhmy3+ZAsCa+x6yEaptTPkGzoIbqnqaTE5eyZI E5xXOZNNziQWUvzLTBJaLZGwosWseS1jOobZBI0Wd1aUNlu4yrqboDQhABETndaP ctabD9InS3TZ1WbqhrFlv88sU1d7BDoVqLmuvu1Ux1pW/bt37PI00OgZMp79V8xQ bry5iYMg3LB58fgxcfpgqrqFM+fZE0tOojJoGirYO56BNCmUaJzQ396QRbZDVa7k TZUtNRB4UqcEGjQnKBaKyQKZgRFUzrp3yrLrM7MCmSNgm/YWE6pz//lqKuMU+yDs ibuTgf0dNO43+I18syaJZzWLkixXfQ== =RU6q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aszybtxybgdwzbnh--