On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 01:29:13PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Thursday 18 July 2013 10:55:56 Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 07/17/2013 04:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Here's a small patch set that replaces PWM polarity numerical constants > > > with macros in DT. > > > > The series, > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I'm (very very) slightly hesitant about patch 3/4, since it's moving towards > > all PWMs having to use the same specifier format, whereas specifiers are at > > least potentially binding-specific, not device-type-specific. However, > > consistency is good; there's no need to do something different just for the > > heck of it. Equally, there's nothing actually stopping a new binding from > > defining its own format rather than simply deferring to pwm.txt if it > > absolutely has to, so I think this will turn out fine. > > Exactly, that's why I don't think it's an issue. pwm.txt defines a common > format, individual bindings are free to use it or not. > > Thierry, if you're fine with the patches, could you take them in your tree > with Stephen's Reviewed-by, or should I report them and send you a pull > request ? They look good to me. I'll take them into my tree and add Stephen's Reviwed-by. It might take me another week, though, as I'm currently rather busy with other things. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
