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

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

Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:20:54 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     hs@...x.de, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
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>,
        Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@....at>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [v2] Input: pwm-beeper: support customized freq for SND_BELL

On February 27, 2017 10:13:43 PM PST, Heiko Schocher <hs@...x.de> wrote:
>Hello David,
>
>Am 28.02.2017 um 06:30 schrieb David Lechner:
>> 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.
>
>I can split this into 2 patches ...

Don't - since Rob already asked DT change you don't need to post to device tree list again and I'll merge them back together since they do not make sense separately.


Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry