On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > [REQUEST] > > Would it be possible for the patches that have already received Acked-by's in > this series to be accepted and applied to the tree? I lost an Acked-by (in > intel-panel.c) because it had a merge conflict with a new change that came in > after I rebased to tip. I wasn't sure earlier about accepting single patches as > opposed to the entire series en masse, but this event has got me thinking. > > [COVER LETTER] > > Because period and duty cycle are defined in the PWM framework structs as ints > with units of nanoseconds, the maximum time duration that can be set is limited > to ~2.147 seconds. Consequently, applications desiring to set greater time > periods via the PWM framework are not be able to do so - like, for instance, > causing an LED to blink at an interval of 5 seconds. > > Redefining the period and duty cycle struct members in the core PWM framework > structs as u64 values will enable larger time durations to be set and solve > this problem. Such a change to the framework mandates that drivers using these > struct members (and corresponding helper functions) also be modified correctly > in order to prevent compilation errors. > > This patch series introduces the changes to all the drivers first, followed by > the framework change at the very end so that when the latter is applied, all > the drivers are in good shape and there are no compilation errors. What's the merge plan for this set? FYI, it's better to send all patches to all parties. That way maintainers and interested persons can follow the discussion and progress, or lack there of. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
