linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] pwm: imx: Provide atomic operation for IMX PWM driver

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]

Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:36:07 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Lothar Wassmann <LW@...o-electronics.de>,
        Bhuvanchandra DV <bhuvanchandra.dv@...adex.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] pwm: imx: Provide atomic operation for IMX PWM
 driver

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:45:40 +0200
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl> wrote:

> This patch set brings atomic operation to i.MX's PWMv2 driver.
> 
> This work has been supported and suggested by Boris Brezillon [1] and 
> Stefan Agner, by showing how simple the transition could be :-).
> 
> It has been divided into several steps:
> - Separate PWMv1 commits from "generic" and non atomic PWM code.
> 
>   NOTE: Since I do not have board with PWMv1, I would like to ask somebody
>   	for testing
> 
> - Move some imx_config_v2 code to separate functions
> 
> - Provide PWM atomic implementation (the ->apply() driver) in a single patch
>   for better readability.
> 
> - Remove redundant PWM code (disable, enable, config callbacks)
> 
> - Clean up the driver infrastructure
> 
> - Provide "polarity_supported" flag to indicate support for polarity 
>   inversion
> 
> This work should be applied on top of following commits:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679706/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679707/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679680/

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. Has patch [1] already been
applied? If that's not the case, then you should just drop it and put
your changes on top of mainline.

[1]http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/679680/