On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:47:34AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Thierry, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in: > > > > drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 830583004e61 ("regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call") > > 27bfa8893b15 ("regulator: pwm: Support for enable GPIO") > > c2588393e631 ("regulator: pwm: Fix regulator ramp delay for continuous mode") > > > > from the regulator tree and commit: > > > > b0303deaa480 ("regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time") > > 8bd57ca236d0 ("regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API") > > 25d16595935b ("regulator: pwm: Retrieve correct voltage") > > 53f239af4c14 ("regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases") > > > > from the pwm tree. > > > > I fixed it up (I think, please check - see below) and can carry the fix > > as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but > > any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > > particularly complex conflicts. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Stephen Rothwell > > [ cut ] > > > - /* Delay required by PWM regulator to settle to the new voltage */ > > - usleep_range(ramp_delay, ramp_delay + 1000); > > + /* Ramp delay is in uV/uS. Adjust to uS and delay */ > > + ramp_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay); > > This was what I was worried about and why I originally sent my patch > based upon Boris's series. The above should be: > > ramp_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(req_min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay); > > Specifically note the use of "req_min_uV" and not "min_uV". Okay, so this is something that needs to be fixed up in one of Boris' patches? Can you help point out where exactly? The conflict should be gone as of tomorrow's linux-next. Thierry