mbox series

[v2,0/2] pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: allow slew rate bit in main pin config register

Message ID 20231013145935.220945-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
Headers
Series pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: allow slew rate bit in main pin config register |

Message

Krzysztof Kozlowski Oct. 13, 2023, 2:59 p.m. UTC 
  Hi,

Changes in v2
=============
1. Reversed xmas tree
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230901090224.27770-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/

Description
===========
Prepare LPASS (Low Power Audio SubSystem) pin controller for newer
Qualcomm SoCs.  The patchset does not bring the newer SoCs yet, but only
re-organizes the code for future changes.

I understand that patch #2 (adding flag) makes little sense without
actual user of that flag, but such user I cannot post yet.

Dependency
==========
Context depends on my previous fix:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230815110625.317971-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Krzysztof Kozlowski (2):
  pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: split slew rate set to separate function
  pinctrl: qcom: lpass-lpi: allow slew rate bit in main pin config
    register

 drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.c | 69 +++++++++++++++---------
 drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-lpass-lpi.h |  7 +++
 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

Comments

Linus Walleij Oct. 23, 2023, 8:19 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:59 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:


> Changes in v2

I tried to apply this to the pinctrl devel branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/log/?h=devel

It doesn't apply, could you rebase it?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
Krzysztof Kozlowski Oct. 23, 2023, 8:22 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 23/10/2023 10:19, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:59 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Changes in v2
> 
> I tried to apply this to the pinctrl devel branch:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/log/?h=devel
> 
> It doesn't apply, could you rebase it?

The context depends on my previous fix which you applied and sent for
v6.6 already:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CACRpkdaybnYEmkgv7VG4fh5sXQ7uwHm2wH2Khja-P1b6idYr8w@mail.gmail.com/

I can rebase, but I am afraid it will cause conflicts. Is it reasonable
for you to merge v6.6-rc7 into your devel branch?



Best regards,
Krzysztof
Linus Walleij Oct. 23, 2023, 8:27 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:22 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 23/10/2023 10:19, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:59 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Changes in v2
> >
> > I tried to apply this to the pinctrl devel branch:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/log/?h=devel
> >
> > It doesn't apply, could you rebase it?
>
> The context depends on my previous fix which you applied and sent for
> v6.6 already:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CACRpkdaybnYEmkgv7VG4fh5sXQ7uwHm2wH2Khja-P1b6idYr8w@mail.gmail.com/
>
> I can rebase, but I am afraid it will cause conflicts. Is it reasonable
> for you to merge v6.6-rc7 into your devel branch?

Torvalds is usually not super-happy when we do that, especially
this late in the development cycle it gets a bit ugly with all
the stuff that brings in.

Can we wait with this patch set until the next development
cycle or is it urgent?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
Krzysztof Kozlowski Oct. 23, 2023, 8:48 a.m. UTC | #4 
On 23/10/2023 10:27, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:22 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 23/10/2023 10:19, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 4:59 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Changes in v2
>>>
>>> I tried to apply this to the pinctrl devel branch:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/log/?h=devel
>>>
>>> It doesn't apply, could you rebase it?
>>
>> The context depends on my previous fix which you applied and sent for
>> v6.6 already:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CACRpkdaybnYEmkgv7VG4fh5sXQ7uwHm2wH2Khja-P1b6idYr8w@mail.gmail.com/
>>
>> I can rebase, but I am afraid it will cause conflicts. Is it reasonable
>> for you to merge v6.6-rc7 into your devel branch?
> 
> Torvalds is usually not super-happy when we do that, especially
> this late in the development cycle it gets a bit ugly with all
> the stuff that brings in.
> 
> Can we wait with this patch set until the next development
> cycle or is it urgent?

We can wait, no problem with that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof