On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 06:29:00AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:39:00PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:30:59PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> > 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 <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> >>
> >> Looks like the below should be squashed into commit:
> >>
> >> 4585082afab4 regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases
> >>
> >> Can you confirm?
> >>
> >> Thierry
> >>
> >> --- >8 ---
> >> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> >> index 263a2d16d909..c24524242da2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> >> @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ static int pwm_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> /* Ramp delay is in uV/uS. Adjust to uS and delay */
> >> - ramp_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay);
> >> + ramp_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(req_min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay);
> >> usleep_range(ramp_delay, ramp_delay + DIV_ROUND_UP(ramp_delay, 10));
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >
> > Doug? Can you confirm?
>
> Yes, right. Sorry, previous email got lost in the shuffle since I was
> on vacation.
>
> Right, commit 4585082afab4 ("regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous
> mode cases") is the one that renamed the parameters and so this use of
> one of the parameters needs to be part of that commit.
Squashed it into the above commit and pushed everything out.
Thanks,
Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
