| Message ID | 20191205061044.1006766-1-thierry.reding@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [GIT,PULL] pwm: Changes for v5.5-rc1 | expand |
Hello Thierry, On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:10:44AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > The following changes since commit 40a6b9a00930fd6b59aa2eb6135abc2efe5440c3: > > Revert "pwm: Let pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state" (2019-10-21 16:48:52 +0200) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git tags/pwm/for-5.5-rc1 > > for you to fetch changes up to f5ff2628867b9c7cb4abb6c6a5a7eea079dad4b6: > > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware (2019-10-21 16:58:09 +0200) > > Thanks, > Thierry > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > pwm: Changes for v5.5-rc1 > > Various changes and minor fixes across a couple of drivers. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Colin Ian King (1): > pwm: sun4i: Drop redundant assignment to variable pval > > Fabrice Gasnier (3): > dt-bindings: pwm-stm32: Document pinctrl sleep state > pwm: stm32: Split breakinput apply routine to ease PM support > pwm: stm32: Add power management support > > Ondrej Jirman (1): > pwm: sun4i: Fix incorrect calculation of duty_cycle/period > > Rasmus Villemoes (1): > pwm: Update comment on struct pwm_ops::apply > > Thierry Reding (8): > dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek: Remove gratuitous compatible string for MT7629 > pwm: stm32: Validate breakinput data from DT > pwm: stm32: Remove clutter from ternary operator > pwm: stm32: Pass breakinput instead of its values > pwm: Read initial hardware state at request time > pwm: cros-ec: Cache duty cycle value > pwm: imx27: Cache duty cycle register value > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware It's a bit of a surprise for me that you included the three last patches as last minute changes. I'm not sure if I oppose them, but they were not in next (as of next-20191205) and I would really like to have some time for patches (that are not obvious fixes of course) there before they go into a pull request. And if it's only to get some transparency. (But in this case I had the impression that the discussion isn't over yet, your last mail in the thread said: "I'm not sure yet about the remainder of the series. Depending on what we decide to do about drivers that can't (or don't want to) write all state through to the hardware, patches 2-4 may become moot." in October which made me expect there is still something to come, at least a statement before the fact. Still more as also several further drivers are affected (according to my research described in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1178351/#2282269).) In return there are a few patches I would really have liked to be seen here: - The series "Updates for the atmel PWM driver" that didn't get any response from you since August although it got some acks from the atmel guys. (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=127096&state=*, This is marked Superseeded for reasons unknown to me that I asked about in October.) - The series starting with "pwm: rcar: Drop useless call to pwm_get_state" from October which got reviews by a renesas guy. (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182649/, https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182648/, Patchwork didn't identify this as a series, so listing the patches individually.) - The patch "pwm: implement tracing for .get_state() and .apply_state()" that got an review by Steven Rostedt. (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182679/) - The series starting with "pwm: omap-dmtimer: remove pwmchip in .remove before making it unfunctional" from November which IMHO is simple and contains two fixes (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=142030) And I'm still waiting for feedback on - "Documentation: pwm: rework documentation for the framework" (since January) - "pwm: add debug knob to help driver authors" (since August) :-( Uwe
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:59:58AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Thierry, > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:10:44AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > The following changes since commit 40a6b9a00930fd6b59aa2eb6135abc2efe5440c3: > > > > Revert "pwm: Let pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state" (2019-10-21 16:48:52 +0200) > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git tags/pwm/for-5.5-rc1 > > > > for you to fetch changes up to f5ff2628867b9c7cb4abb6c6a5a7eea079dad4b6: > > > > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware (2019-10-21 16:58:09 +0200) > > > > Thanks, > > Thierry > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > pwm: Changes for v5.5-rc1 > > > > Various changes and minor fixes across a couple of drivers. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Colin Ian King (1): > > pwm: sun4i: Drop redundant assignment to variable pval > > > > Fabrice Gasnier (3): > > dt-bindings: pwm-stm32: Document pinctrl sleep state > > pwm: stm32: Split breakinput apply routine to ease PM support > > pwm: stm32: Add power management support > > > > Ondrej Jirman (1): > > pwm: sun4i: Fix incorrect calculation of duty_cycle/period > > > > Rasmus Villemoes (1): > > pwm: Update comment on struct pwm_ops::apply > > > > Thierry Reding (8): > > dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek: Remove gratuitous compatible string for MT7629 > > pwm: stm32: Validate breakinput data from DT > > pwm: stm32: Remove clutter from ternary operator > > pwm: stm32: Pass breakinput instead of its values > > pwm: Read initial hardware state at request time > > pwm: cros-ec: Cache duty cycle value > > pwm: imx27: Cache duty cycle register value > > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware > > It's a bit of a surprise for me that you included the three last patches > as last minute changes. I'm not sure if I oppose them, but they were not > in next (as of next-20191205) and I would really like to have some time > for patches (that are not obvious fixes of course) there before they go > into a pull request. And if it's only to get some transparency. > (But in this case I had the impression that the discussion isn't over > yet, your last mail in the thread said: "I'm not sure yet about the > remainder of the series. Depending on what we decide to do about drivers > that can't (or don't want to) write all state through to the hardware, > patches 2-4 may become moot." in October which made me expect there is > still something to come, at least a statement before the fact. Still > more as also several further drivers are affected (according to my > research described in > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1178351/#2282269).) Yes, the last four patches weren't meant to be in this pull request. That's what I get for trying to squeeze this in before coffee. Linus, please ignore this one, I'll send out a new pull request shortly. > In return there are a few patches I would really have liked to be seen > here: > > - The series "Updates for the atmel PWM driver" that didn't get any > response from you since August although it got some acks from the > atmel guys. > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=127096&state=*, > This is marked Superseeded for reasons unknown to me that I asked > about in October.) I usually mark patches as superseeded when there are new revisions. It looks like I might have marked these accidentally since I can't see any new versions of that series. I'll pick those up after v5.5-rc1. > - The series starting with "pwm: rcar: Drop useless call to > pwm_get_state" from October which got reviews by a renesas guy. > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182649/, > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182648/, > Patchwork didn't identify this as a series, so listing the patches > individually.) I missed those. Please do ping me if I haven't reviewed or applied patches after a week or so to remind me. Sometimes my inbox fills up so quickly that some patches get lost. > - The patch "pwm: implement tracing for .get_state() and > .apply_state()" that got an review by Steven Rostedt. > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182679/) Review for this came in after v5.4-rc7, so I didn't consider it for v5.5. I'll pick it up after v5.5-rc1. > - The series starting with "pwm: omap-dmtimer: remove pwmchip in > .remove before making it unfunctional" from November which IMHO is > simple and contains two fixes > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=142030) Same here. > And I'm still waiting for feedback on > > - "Documentation: pwm: rework documentation for the framework" (since > January) Please resend this, I can't find it in my inbox. > - "pwm: add debug knob to help driver authors" (since August) My recollection is that this flagged a bunch of issues right out of the box, so I'm hesitant to apply it without wider concensus that we want this, or some effort to address the issues that this flags. Thierry
Hello Thierry, On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:41:02AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:59:58AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:10:44AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > The following changes since commit 40a6b9a00930fd6b59aa2eb6135abc2efe5440c3: > > > > > > Revert "pwm: Let pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state" (2019-10-21 16:48:52 +0200) > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git tags/pwm/for-5.5-rc1 > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to f5ff2628867b9c7cb4abb6c6a5a7eea079dad4b6: > > > > > > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware (2019-10-21 16:58:09 +0200) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Thierry > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > pwm: Changes for v5.5-rc1 > > > > > > Various changes and minor fixes across a couple of drivers. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Colin Ian King (1): > > > pwm: sun4i: Drop redundant assignment to variable pval > > > > > > Fabrice Gasnier (3): > > > dt-bindings: pwm-stm32: Document pinctrl sleep state > > > pwm: stm32: Split breakinput apply routine to ease PM support > > > pwm: stm32: Add power management support > > > > > > Ondrej Jirman (1): > > > pwm: sun4i: Fix incorrect calculation of duty_cycle/period > > > > > > Rasmus Villemoes (1): > > > pwm: Update comment on struct pwm_ops::apply > > > > > > Thierry Reding (8): > > > dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek: Remove gratuitous compatible string for MT7629 > > > pwm: stm32: Validate breakinput data from DT > > > pwm: stm32: Remove clutter from ternary operator > > > pwm: stm32: Pass breakinput instead of its values > > > pwm: Read initial hardware state at request time > > > pwm: cros-ec: Cache duty cycle value > > > pwm: imx27: Cache duty cycle register value > > > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware > > > > It's a bit of a surprise for me that you included the three last patches > > as last minute changes. I'm not sure if I oppose them, but they were not > > in next (as of next-20191205) and I would really like to have some time > > for patches (that are not obvious fixes of course) there before they go > > into a pull request. And if it's only to get some transparency. > > (But in this case I had the impression that the discussion isn't over > > yet, your last mail in the thread said: "I'm not sure yet about the > > remainder of the series. Depending on what we decide to do about drivers > > that can't (or don't want to) write all state through to the hardware, > > patches 2-4 may become moot." in October which made me expect there is > > still something to come, at least a statement before the fact. Still > > more as also several further drivers are affected (according to my > > research described in > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1178351/#2282269).) > > Yes, the last four patches weren't meant to be in this pull request. > That's what I get for trying to squeeze this in before coffee. Ah right, it's four patches, not three. (I thought I saw "pwm: Read initial hardware state at request time" in next.) > Please do ping me if I haven't reviewed or applied patches after a > week or so to remind me. Sometimes my inbox fills up so quickly that > some patches get lost. ok. > > - The patch "pwm: implement tracing for .get_state() and > > .apply_state()" that got an review by Steven Rostedt. > > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182679/) > > Review for this came in after v5.4-rc7, so I didn't consider it for > v5.5. I'll pick it up after v5.5-rc1. I got Steven's mail on Oct 24 which is the week between -rc4 and -rc5, but ok, I won't argue. > > > - The series starting with "pwm: omap-dmtimer: remove pwmchip in > > .remove before making it unfunctional" from November which IMHO is > > simple and contains two fixes > > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=142030) > > Same here. Does "after v5.5-rc1" mean "for v5.5" or "for v5.6-rc1". I agree that the tracing stuff is merge window material (very useful though in my eyes) while the omap-dmtimer series (at least the first 3 of 4 patches) is about fixes. > > And I'm still waiting for feedback on > > > > - "Documentation: pwm: rework documentation for the framework" (since > > January) > > Please resend this, I can't find it in my inbox. :-|, given that I sent this already twice, pinged several times (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1021566/, https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000709/) and also asked at least once before in a mail where I pinged several patches using a list. > > - "pwm: add debug knob to help driver authors" (since August) > > My recollection is that this flagged a bunch of issues right out of the > box, so I'm hesitant to apply it without wider concensus that we want > this, or some effort to address the issues that this flags. I didn't want you to apply it. That it is not ready for that is out of the question. I assume the patch doesn't apply anymore and needs work for sure. The last mail in the respective thread had a single paragraph: do you consider the idea here worthwile? If so I'd update the patch to current mainline and address the feedback I got so far. This is still interesting, as I don't want to spend my time working on an idea that is then turned down in the end for conceptual reasons. Best regards Uwe
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:05:35AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Thierry, > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:41:02AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:59:58AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:10:44AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > The following changes since commit 40a6b9a00930fd6b59aa2eb6135abc2efe5440c3: > > > > > > > > Revert "pwm: Let pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state" (2019-10-21 16:48:52 +0200) > > > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git tags/pwm/for-5.5-rc1 > > > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to f5ff2628867b9c7cb4abb6c6a5a7eea079dad4b6: > > > > > > > > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware (2019-10-21 16:58:09 +0200) > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Thierry > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > pwm: Changes for v5.5-rc1 > > > > > > > > Various changes and minor fixes across a couple of drivers. > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Colin Ian King (1): > > > > pwm: sun4i: Drop redundant assignment to variable pval > > > > > > > > Fabrice Gasnier (3): > > > > dt-bindings: pwm-stm32: Document pinctrl sleep state > > > > pwm: stm32: Split breakinput apply routine to ease PM support > > > > pwm: stm32: Add power management support > > > > > > > > Ondrej Jirman (1): > > > > pwm: sun4i: Fix incorrect calculation of duty_cycle/period > > > > > > > > Rasmus Villemoes (1): > > > > pwm: Update comment on struct pwm_ops::apply > > > > > > > > Thierry Reding (8): > > > > dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek: Remove gratuitous compatible string for MT7629 > > > > pwm: stm32: Validate breakinput data from DT > > > > pwm: stm32: Remove clutter from ternary operator > > > > pwm: stm32: Pass breakinput instead of its values > > > > pwm: Read initial hardware state at request time > > > > pwm: cros-ec: Cache duty cycle value > > > > pwm: imx27: Cache duty cycle register value > > > > pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware > > > > > > It's a bit of a surprise for me that you included the three last patches > > > as last minute changes. I'm not sure if I oppose them, but they were not > > > in next (as of next-20191205) and I would really like to have some time > > > for patches (that are not obvious fixes of course) there before they go > > > into a pull request. And if it's only to get some transparency. > > > (But in this case I had the impression that the discussion isn't over > > > yet, your last mail in the thread said: "I'm not sure yet about the > > > remainder of the series. Depending on what we decide to do about drivers > > > that can't (or don't want to) write all state through to the hardware, > > > patches 2-4 may become moot." in October which made me expect there is > > > still something to come, at least a statement before the fact. Still > > > more as also several further drivers are affected (according to my > > > research described in > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1178351/#2282269).) > > > > Yes, the last four patches weren't meant to be in this pull request. > > That's what I get for trying to squeeze this in before coffee. > > Ah right, it's four patches, not three. (I thought I saw "pwm: Read > initial hardware state at request time" in next.) > > > Please do ping me if I haven't reviewed or applied patches after a > > week or so to remind me. Sometimes my inbox fills up so quickly that > > some patches get lost. > > ok. > > > > - The patch "pwm: implement tracing for .get_state() and > > > .apply_state()" that got an review by Steven Rostedt. > > > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1182679/) > > > > Review for this came in after v5.4-rc7, so I didn't consider it for > > v5.5. I'll pick it up after v5.5-rc1. > > I got Steven's mail on Oct 24 which is the week between -rc4 and -rc5, > but ok, I won't argue. Both my inbox and patchwork say that the email arrived on November 13. > > > > > - The series starting with "pwm: omap-dmtimer: remove pwmchip in > > > .remove before making it unfunctional" from November which IMHO is > > > simple and contains two fixes > > > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=142030) > > > > Same here. > > Does "after v5.5-rc1" mean "for v5.5" or "for v5.6-rc1". I agree that > the tracing stuff is merge window material (very useful though in my > eyes) while the omap-dmtimer series (at least the first 3 of 4 patches) > is about fixes. These all change code that's been like this for more than 4 years and nobody's ever reported a bug. The very worst that can happen here is that we leak a device reference, but these are platform devices, so they aren't going to go anywhere anyway. > > > And I'm still waiting for feedback on > > > > > > - "Documentation: pwm: rework documentation for the framework" (since > > > January) > > > > Please resend this, I can't find it in my inbox. > > :-|, given that I sent this already twice, pinged several times > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1021566/, > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000709/) and also asked at least > once before in a mail where I pinged several patches using a list. I find patchwork always difficult for reviewing, but that patch is particularly difficult to review. You're basically rewriting all of the documentation in a way that you think is better. It'd be much easier to review if this was done more incrementally. It looks like your goals could be easily met by just extending the existing documentation, or bringing it up-to-date with the API. > > > - "pwm: add debug knob to help driver authors" (since August) > > > > My recollection is that this flagged a bunch of issues right out of the > > box, so I'm hesitant to apply it without wider concensus that we want > > this, or some effort to address the issues that this flags. > > I didn't want you to apply it. That it is not ready for that is out of > the question. I assume the patch doesn't apply anymore and needs work > for sure. The last mail in the respective thread had a single paragraph: > > do you consider the idea here worthwile? If so I'd update the > patch to current mainline and address the feedback I got so far. > > This is still interesting, as I don't want to spend my time working on > an idea that is then turned down in the end for conceptual reasons. There's nothing conceptually wrong about it. The one problem that I see with it is that we can't force people to use it because it's noisy when things go wrong, and they currently do go wrong. On the other hand, if we don't enforce its use, developers are likely to just ignore its existence. So I think we need to get drivers into a little better shape so that we eliminate at least all of the issues that currently exist. Then we can merge this and maybe opportunistically enforce this during a release cycle to see if there's any fallout. Thierry
Hello Thierry, On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 12:04:25PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:05:35AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:41:02AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > Review for this came in after v5.4-rc7, so I didn't consider it for > > > v5.5. I'll pick it up after v5.5-rc1. > > > > I got Steven's mail on Oct 24 which is the week between -rc4 and -rc5, > > but ok, I won't argue. > > Both my inbox and patchwork say that the email arrived on November 13. Ah, you're right. Oct 24 was the date I sent the patch. Don't know what I saw before. Please forgive my wrong correction. > > > > - The series starting with "pwm: omap-dmtimer: remove pwmchip in > > > > .remove before making it unfunctional" from November which IMHO is > > > > simple and contains two fixes > > > > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pwm/list/?series=142030) > > > > > > Same here. > > > > Does "after v5.5-rc1" mean "for v5.5" or "for v5.6-rc1". I agree that > > the tracing stuff is merge window material (very useful though in my > > eyes) while the omap-dmtimer series (at least the first 3 of 4 patches) > > is about fixes. > > These all change code that's been like this for more than 4 years and > nobody's ever reported a bug. That nobody uncovered a certain bug before should not stop us fixing it quickly. > The very worst that can happen here is that we leak a device > reference, but these are platform devices, so they aren't going to go > anywhere anyway. Unless someone unloads the driver or unbinds it from the device. Even if you question that this warrants an urgent fix (which I disagree to), then patch 2 fixes an error path and patch 3 an unconditional resouce leak (both in .probe). > > > > And I'm still waiting for feedback on > > > > > > > > - "Documentation: pwm: rework documentation for the framework" (since > > > > January) > > > > > > Please resend this, I can't find it in my inbox. > > > > :-|, given that I sent this already twice, pinged several times > > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1021566/, > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1000709/) and also asked at least > > once before in a mail where I pinged several patches using a list. > > I find patchwork always difficult for reviewing, but that patch is > particularly difficult to review. You're basically rewriting all of the > documentation in a way that you think is better. It'd be much easier to > review if this was done more incrementally. > > It looks like your goals could be easily met by just extending the > existing documentation, or bringing it up-to-date with the API. OK, will try to split it in smaller chunks. > > > > - "pwm: add debug knob to help driver authors" (since August) > > > > > > My recollection is that this flagged a bunch of issues right out of the > > > box, so I'm hesitant to apply it without wider concensus that we want > > > this, or some effort to address the issues that this flags. > > > > I didn't want you to apply it. That it is not ready for that is out of > > the question. I assume the patch doesn't apply anymore and needs work > > for sure. The last mail in the respective thread had a single paragraph: > > > > do you consider the idea here worthwile? If so I'd update the > > patch to current mainline and address the feedback I got so far. > > > > This is still interesting, as I don't want to spend my time working on > > an idea that is then turned down in the end for conceptual reasons. > > There's nothing conceptually wrong about it. The one problem that I see > with it is that we can't force people to use it because it's noisy when > things go wrong, and they currently do go wrong. On the other hand, if > we don't enforce its use, developers are likely to just ignore its > existence. I agree that it doesn't help when a driver author has this disabled. But still it helps to catch problems if testers know it or during review something is catched and then you only need to point to this Kconfig setting instead of referencing the documentation or otherwise explain what you want. And even if there is only a 0.2 chance that a prospective pwm driver author will enable it and so have a better driver in patch submission round 1 it's already worth the effort in my eyes. All in all I think "but some might not profit unless you force them" isn't a reason good enough to not do something for those who might notice and benefit from your work. And even if it's only me who benefits that's good enough, too (assuming there are no downsides for others). > So I think we need to get drivers into a little better shape so that we For getting there having this knob configurable (and default off) is already helpful. > eliminate at least all of the issues that currently exist. Then we can > merge this and maybe opportunistically enforce this during a release > cycle to see if there's any fallout. And if there is fallout just having to change some Kconfig magic to disable the checks would be good. So having PWM_DEBUG seems like a good idea to me. Not sure that defaulting to all these checks is a good idea as at least some of them introduce some delays waiting for completed periods. Having this configurable seems to work for other subsystems just fine (judging from looking at the output of git grep DEBUG drivers/*/Kconfig ). Best regards Uwe
Hi Linus, The following changes since commit 40a6b9a00930fd6b59aa2eb6135abc2efe5440c3: Revert "pwm: Let pwm_get_state() return the last implemented state" (2019-10-21 16:48:52 +0200) are available in the Git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/thierry.reding/linux-pwm.git tags/pwm/for-5.5-rc1 for you to fetch changes up to f5ff2628867b9c7cb4abb6c6a5a7eea079dad4b6: pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware (2019-10-21 16:58:09 +0200) Thanks, Thierry ---------------------------------------------------------------- pwm: Changes for v5.5-rc1 Various changes and minor fixes across a couple of drivers. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Ian King (1): pwm: sun4i: Drop redundant assignment to variable pval Fabrice Gasnier (3): dt-bindings: pwm-stm32: Document pinctrl sleep state pwm: stm32: Split breakinput apply routine to ease PM support pwm: stm32: Add power management support Ondrej Jirman (1): pwm: sun4i: Fix incorrect calculation of duty_cycle/period Rasmus Villemoes (1): pwm: Update comment on struct pwm_ops::apply Thierry Reding (8): dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek: Remove gratuitous compatible string for MT7629 pwm: stm32: Validate breakinput data from DT pwm: stm32: Remove clutter from ternary operator pwm: stm32: Pass breakinput instead of its values pwm: Read initial hardware state at request time pwm: cros-ec: Cache duty cycle value pwm: imx27: Cache duty cycle register value pwm: imx27: Unconditionally write state to hardware .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-mediatek.txt | 2 +- .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt | 8 +- drivers/pwm/core.c | 6 +- drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c | 58 ++++++++- drivers/pwm/pwm-imx27.c | 137 ++++++++++++--------- drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32.c | 112 ++++++++++++----- drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c | 5 +- include/linux/mfd/stm32-timers.h | 12 +- include/linux/pwm.h | 5 +- 9 files changed, 228 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-)