From: boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (Boris Brezillon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 08/15] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:57:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720115704.0c64d070@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720091003.GN29614@ulmo>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:10:04 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:50:03AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:36:50 +0200
> > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:21:43AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:16:00 +0200
> > > > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:54AM +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 initial PWM state
> > > > > > once we have added proper support for PWM init state retrieval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 4 +---
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > index ae498c1..fe5597c 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > @@ -295,10 +295,8 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > * via the PWM lookup table.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > pb->period = pwm_get_default_period(pb->pwm);
> > > > > > - if (!pb->period && (data->pwm_period_ns > 0)) {
> > > > > > + if (!pb->period && (data->pwm_period_ns > 0))
> > > > > > pb->period = data->pwm_period_ns;
> > > > > > - pwm_set_period(pb->pwm, data->pwm_period_ns);
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pb->lth_brightness = data->lth_brightness * (pb->period / pb->scale);
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I remember this line is there in order to pass in a period if
> > > > > the backlight driver is initialized from board setup files. In such a
> > > > > case there won't be an period associated with the PWM channel in the
> > > > > first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think even with the introduction of a default period, we'd be missing
> > > > > out on the board setup case because there is no standard place where it
> > > > > is being set, so it must come from the platform data.
> > > >
> > > > AFAICT, we don't need to explicitly set the period when probing the
> > > > backlight device, because it will be set next time we call
> > > > pwm_config(), and since we're passing pb->period when calling
> > > > pwm_config() everything should be fine.
> > >
> > > Calling pwm_set_period() is still good for consistency. Consider for
> > > example what happens if after the driver were to call pwm_get_period().
> > > It would return some more or less random value (likely 0 or whatever it
> > > had been set to by an earlier user).
> >
> > Yes, that's true in general, but in this specific driver
> > pwm_get_period() is never called, and the driver only relies on the
> > pb->period value.
>
> Perhaps that's something that should change. If the PWM core has all
> this infrastructure there should be no need for the backlight driver to
> keep it's own copy of that variable.
Yes, probably. In any case, I don't think we want PWM users to be able
to mess up with the current or default PWM state, that's why I was
planning on making the pwm_set_default_xxx helpers private to PWM
drivers and core infrastructure.
Also note that if we keep this assignment it should at least be changed
to a pwm_set_default_period() so that it does not override the current
PWM state.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@gmail.com>, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>,
Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>,
linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/15] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:57:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720115704.0c64d070@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720091003.GN29614@ulmo>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:10:04 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:50:03AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:36:50 +0200
> > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:21:43AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:16:00 +0200
> > > > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:54AM +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 initial PWM state
> > > > > > once we have added proper support for PWM init state retrieval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 4 +---
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > index ae498c1..fe5597c 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > @@ -295,10 +295,8 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > * via the PWM lookup table.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > pb->period = pwm_get_default_period(pb->pwm);
> > > > > > - if (!pb->period && (data->pwm_period_ns > 0)) {
> > > > > > + if (!pb->period && (data->pwm_period_ns > 0))
> > > > > > pb->period = data->pwm_period_ns;
> > > > > > - pwm_set_period(pb->pwm, data->pwm_period_ns);
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pb->lth_brightness = data->lth_brightness * (pb->period / pb->scale);
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I remember this line is there in order to pass in a period if
> > > > > the backlight driver is initialized from board setup files. In such a
> > > > > case there won't be an period associated with the PWM channel in the
> > > > > first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think even with the introduction of a default period, we'd be missing
> > > > > out on the board setup case because there is no standard place where it
> > > > > is being set, so it must come from the platform data.
> > > >
> > > > AFAICT, we don't need to explicitly set the period when probing the
> > > > backlight device, because it will be set next time we call
> > > > pwm_config(), and since we're passing pb->period when calling
> > > > pwm_config() everything should be fine.
> > >
> > > Calling pwm_set_period() is still good for consistency. Consider for
> > > example what happens if after the driver were to call pwm_get_period().
> > > It would return some more or less random value (likely 0 or whatever it
> > > had been set to by an earlier user).
> >
> > Yes, that's true in general, but in this specific driver
> > pwm_get_period() is never called, and the driver only relies on the
> > pb->period value.
>
> Perhaps that's something that should change. If the PWM core has all
> this infrastructure there should be no need for the backlight driver to
> keep it's own copy of that variable.
Yes, probably. In any case, I don't think we want PWM users to be able
to mess up with the current or default PWM state, that's why I was
planning on making the pwm_set_default_xxx helpers private to PWM
drivers and core infrastructure.
Also note that if we keep this assignment it should at least be changed
to a pwm_set_default_period() so that it does not override the current
PWM state.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/15] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:57:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150720115704.0c64d070@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150720091003.GN29614@ulmo>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:10:04 +0200
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:50:03AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:36:50 +0200
> > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:21:43AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:16:00 +0200
> > > > Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:21:54AM +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 initial PWM state
> > > > > > once we have added proper support for PWM init state retrieval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c | 4 +---
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > index ae498c1..fe5597c 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > > > @@ -295,10 +295,8 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > * via the PWM lookup table.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > pb->period = pwm_get_default_period(pb->pwm);
> > > > > > - if (!pb->period && (data->pwm_period_ns > 0)) {
> > > > > > + if (!pb->period && (data->pwm_period_ns > 0))
> > > > > > pb->period = data->pwm_period_ns;
> > > > > > - pwm_set_period(pb->pwm, data->pwm_period_ns);
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pb->lth_brightness = data->lth_brightness * (pb->period / pb->scale);
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I remember this line is there in order to pass in a period if
> > > > > the backlight driver is initialized from board setup files. In such a
> > > > > case there won't be an period associated with the PWM channel in the
> > > > > first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think even with the introduction of a default period, we'd be missing
> > > > > out on the board setup case because there is no standard place where it
> > > > > is being set, so it must come from the platform data.
> > > >
> > > > AFAICT, we don't need to explicitly set the period when probing the
> > > > backlight device, because it will be set next time we call
> > > > pwm_config(), and since we're passing pb->period when calling
> > > > pwm_config() everything should be fine.
> > >
> > > Calling pwm_set_period() is still good for consistency. Consider for
> > > example what happens if after the driver were to call pwm_get_period().
> > > It would return some more or less random value (likely 0 or whatever it
> > > had been set to by an earlier user).
> >
> > Yes, that's true in general, but in this specific driver
> > pwm_get_period() is never called, and the driver only relies on the
> > pb->period value.
>
> Perhaps that's something that should change. If the PWM core has all
> this infrastructure there should be no need for the backlight driver to
> keep it's own copy of that variable.
Yes, probably. In any case, I don't think we want PWM users to be able
to mess up with the current or default PWM state, that's why I was
planning on making the pwm_set_default_xxx helpers private to PWM
drivers and core infrastructure.
Also note that if we keep this assignment it should at least be changed
to a pwm_set_default_period() so that it does not override the current
PWM state.
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-20 9:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 204+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-01 8:21 [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 01/15] pwm: add the pwm_is_enabled() helper Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:47 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 02/15] pwm: fix pwm_get_period and pwm_get_duty_cycle prototypes Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:50 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 03/15] pwm: add pwm_get_polarity helper function Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:52 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 04/15] pwm: make use of pwm_get_xxx helpers where appropriate Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:00 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 05/15] pwm: introduce default period and polarity concepts Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 6:44 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:49 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:03 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:22 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:32 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 06/15] pwm: define a new pwm_state struct Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:09 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:12 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 07/15] pwm: move the enabled/disabled info to " Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:11 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 08/15] backlight: pwm_bl: remove useless call to pwm_set_period Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:16 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:36 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:50 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:10 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 09/15] pwm: declare a default PWM state Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 10/15] pwm: add the PWM initial state retrieval infra Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:01 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:42 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 11/15] pwm: add the core infrastructure to allow atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 8:59 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 9:48 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 10:04 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 12/15] pwm: rockchip: add initial state retrieval Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:44 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:46 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 13/15] pwm: rockchip: add support for atomic update Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:48 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:43 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 14/15] regulator: pwm: implement ->enable(), ->disable() and ->is_enabled methods Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 11:58 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:05 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:08 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 12:19 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:50 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:02 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:08 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 15/15] regulator: pwm: properly initialize the ->state field Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 8:22 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 10:51 ` Mark Brown
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-14 11:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-01 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 16/15] pwm: add informations about polarity, duty cycle and period to debugfs Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:50 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:50 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 13:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-03 8:43 ` [PATCH] " Heiko Stübner
2015-07-03 8:43 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-03 8:43 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` [RFC PATCH 00/15] pwm: add support for atomic update Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-01 21:57 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:55 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:03 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:17 ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:42 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-02 7:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
2015-07-20 7:43 ` Thierry Reding
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150720115704.0c64d070@bbrezillon \
--to=boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.