On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:08:19 +0100
Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 09:49:13PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:31:57PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> > > > - dropped pwm-regulator patches (should be submitted separately)
>
> > > I think the second patch needs to go in with this series doesn't it? It
> > > was just the enable one that was good to go immediately IIRC.
>
> > I was planning on submitting those two patches after the PWM changes
> > have been merged, but you're right, maybe we should think about a proper
> > way to smoothly get all of them in the same release.
>
> I see. We should at least try to get the enable one in this time, I'd
Actually I was wrong about that patch: it depends on patch 1/15 of the
RFC ("pwm: add the pwm_is_enabled() helper").
> like to just apply it and then either do a cross tree merge for the one
> making use of the new functionality or (if the rest of the series gets
> held up for some reason) just letting it get merged via Linus' tree.
>
> > I have rebased my work on top your regulator/topic/pwm branch containing
> > Lee's work [1].
>
> > Note that patch 1 has changed a bit to take Lee's additions into
> > account.
>
> > Thierry, could you create a branch based on Mark's regulator/topic/pwm
> > branch ?
> > If everybody agrees on the solution I'll send a v3 rebasing my work on
> > top of this topic branch.
>
> I think that's fine for me, I can tag the PWM branch in my tree and
> Thierry can pull that.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
