linux-kernel - Re: [v2] Input: pwm-beeper: support customized freq for SND

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:30:21 -0600
From:   David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To:     hs@...x.de
Cc:     linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Guan Ben <ben.guan@...bosch.com>,
        Mark Jonas <mark.jonas@...bosch.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@....at>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [v2] Input: pwm-beeper: support customized freq for SND_BELL

On 02/27/2017 11:19 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> Am 27.02.2017 um 19:11 schrieb David Lechner:
>> On 02/20/2017 02:37 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
>>> From: Guan Ben <ben.guan@...bosch.com>
>>>
>>> extend the pwm-beeper driver to support customized frequency
>>> for SND_BELL from device tree.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Guan Ben <ben.guan@...bosch.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Jonas <mark.jonas@...bosch.com>
>>> [hs@...x.de: adapted to 4.10-rc7]
>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@...x.de>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - add comment from Rob Herring:
>>>   rename property name "bell-frequency" to "beeper-hz"
>>
>> Is there a separate patch for the devicetree bindings documentation?
>
> No, it is in this patch ... In the meantime I got an
> Acked-by from Rob Herring ...
>

What I should have said is that, in general, I think it is preferred to 
have the device tree bindings as a separate patch from the code changes.