[linux-sunxi] Re: [RFC PATCH] clk: sunxi: Let divs clocks read the base factor clock name from devicetree

On 19/03/16 15:36, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: Hi Chen-Yu, > Hi, > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Andre Przywara > wrote: >> From: Jens Kuske >> >> Currently, the sunxi clock driver gets the name for the base factor clock >> of divs clocks from the

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 34/50] mtd: nand: gpmi: switch to mtd_ooblayout_ops

From: Boris Brezillon Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:31 PM To: Han Xu Cc: David Woodhouse; Brian Norris; linux-...@lists.infradead.org; Richard Weinberger; Daniel Mack; Haojian Zhuang; Robert Jarzmik; Kukjin Kim; Krzysztof

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 34/50] mtd: nand: gpmi: switch to mtd_ooblayout_ops

From: Boris Brezillon Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:14 AM To: David Woodhouse; Brian Norris; linux-...@lists.infradead.org; Boris Brezillon; Richard Weinberger Cc: Daniel Mack; Haojian Zhuang; Robert Jarzmik; Kukjin

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 04/12] mtd: nand: brcm: rely on generic DT parsing done in nand_scan_ident()

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:54:24PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > The core now takes care of parsing generic DT properties in > nand_scan_ident() when nand_set_flash_node() has been called. > Rely on this initialization instead of calling of_get_nand_xxx() > manually. > > Signed-off-by: Boris

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 03/12] mtd: nand: omap2: rely on generic DT parsing done in nand_scan_ident()

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:54:23 +0200 Boris Brezillon wrote: > The core now takes care of parsing generic DT properties in > nand_scan_ident() when nand_set_flash_node() has been called. > Rely on this initialization instead of calling of_get_nand_xxx() >

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 01/12] mtd: nand: remove unneeded of_mtd.h inclusions

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:54:21 +0200 Boris Brezillon wrote: > Some drivers are including linux/of_mtd.h even if they don't use any of > the of_get_nand_xxx() helpers. > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon Applied. > --- >

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 03/46] backlight: lm3630a_bl: stop messing with the pwm->period field

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:16:13PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > pwm->period field is not supposed to be changed by PWM users. The only > > > ones authorized to change it are the

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 02/46] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period()

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:16:53PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:25PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > The PWM period will be set when calling pwm_config. Remove this useless > > > call to pwm_set_period(), which might

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:05:46 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:26:44PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:11:18 +0200 > > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:45:08PM +0200,

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 03/46] backlight: lm3630a_bl: stop messing with the pwm->period field

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > pwm->period field is not supposed to be changed by PWM users. The only > > ones authorized to change it are the PWM core and PWM drivers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 02/46] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period()

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:25PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > The PWM period will be set when calling pwm_config. Remove this useless > > call to pwm_set_period(), which might mess up with the internal PWM state. > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris

Re: Re: [linux-sunxi] how to build boot loader for V3s via git repository

Dear Calaby, Many thanks. I wonder to know where i can disscuss this kind of topic? It's better to advise me a bbs where most of the people develop project with Allwinner chips. thanks. astankvai 2016-04-11 发件人： Julian Calaby 发送时间： 2016-04-10 21:19:17 收件人： astank...@digitalhomeland.cn 抄送：

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:26:44PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:11:18 +0200 > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:45:08PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:21:41 +0200 > > > Thierry Reding

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:11:18 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:45:08PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:21:41 +0200 > > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:17:18PM +0200,

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 05/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_args concept

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:06:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:39:12 +0200 > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:28PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > Currently the PWM core mixes the current PWM state with the

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:45:08PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:21:41 +0200 > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:17:18PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:49:04 +0200 > > > Thierry Reding

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 05/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_args concept

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:39:12 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:28PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Currently the PWM core mixes the current PWM state with the per-platform > > reference config (specified through the PWM lookup table, DT

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 05/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_args concept

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:20:29 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:39:12 +0200 > > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:28PM +0200,

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:21:41 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:17:18PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:49:04 +0200 > > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:38PM +0200,

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:17:18PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:49:04 +0200 > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:38PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > The PWM state, represented by its period, duty_cycle and polarity,

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 05/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_args concept

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:39:12 +0200 > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:28PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > Currently the PWM core mixes the current PWM state with the

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:49:04 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:38PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > The PWM state, represented by its period, duty_cycle and polarity, > > is currently directly stored in the PWM device. > > Declare a pwm_state

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 05/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_args concept

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:39:12 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:28PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Currently the PWM core mixes the current PWM state with the per-platform > > reference config (specified through the PWM lookup table, DT

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 16/46] pwm: move the enabled/disabled info into pwm_state

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:39PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: [...] > @@ -145,7 +146,11 @@ static inline void pwm_get_state(const struct pwm_device > *pwm, > > static inline bool pwm_is_enabled(const struct pwm_device *pwm) > { > - return test_bit(PWMF_ENABLED, >flags); > + struct

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 15/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_state concept

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:38PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > The PWM state, represented by its period, duty_cycle and polarity, > is currently directly stored in the PWM device. > Declare a pwm_state structure embedding those field so that we can later > use this struct to atomically update

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 04/46] pwm: get rid of pwm->lock

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 01:32:55PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:22:46 +0200 > Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 05/46] pwm: introduce the pwm_args concept

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:28PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Currently the PWM core mixes the current PWM state with the per-platform > reference config (specified through the PWM lookup table, DT definition or > directly hardcoded in PWM drivers). > > Create a pwm_args struct to store this

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 04/46] pwm: get rid of pwm->lock

Hi Thierry, On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:22:46 +0200 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in > > pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 04/46] pwm: get rid of pwm->lock

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > PWM devices are not protected against concurrent accesses. The lock in > pwm_device might let PWM users think it is, but it's actually only > protecting the enabled state. > > Removing this lock should be fine as long as all PWM

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 03/46] backlight: lm3630a_bl: stop messing with the pwm->period field

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:26PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > pwm->period field is not supposed to be changed by PWM users. The only > ones authorized to change it are the PWM core and PWM drivers. > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon > --- >

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 02/46] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period()

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:25PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > The PWM period will be set when calling pwm_config. Remove this useless > call to pwm_set_period(), which might mess up with the internal PWM state. > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon >

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 01/46] pwm: rcar: make use of pwm_is_enabled()

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:03:24PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Commit 5c31252c4a86 ("pwm: Add the pwm_is_enabled() helper") introduced a > new function to test whether a PWM device is enabled or not without > manipulating PWM internal fields. > Hiding this is necessary if we want to smoothly

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 30/46] regulator: pwm: retrieve correct voltage

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:09:38 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:37:22AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:54:31PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > I'm not sure there's a strong

[linux-sunxi] [PATCH sunxi-tools] fel: Introduce helper function for reporting libusb errors

Commit 472ac4759df557c00248e557beb869f4fe7d75f7 introduced a possible regression by relying on the availability of libusb_strerror(). There are libusb versions out there _not_ offering this function, which breaks compilation. Introducing a separate helper function allows us to work around this,

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 30/46] regulator: pwm: retrieve correct voltage

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:37:22AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:54:31PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > I'm not sure there's a strong one, we don't really use the class device > > for anything, but without doing a full

[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v5 30/46] regulator: pwm: retrieve correct voltage

Hi Mark, On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:42:03 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:54:31PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > Is there any reason for calling set_machine_constraints() after > > device_register() in regulator_register()? > > I'm not sure there's a