linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the regulator tree

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20160711213059.GA12816@ulmo.ba.sec>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:30:59 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the regulator tree

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@...b.auug.org.au> 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.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)