From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757246AbbGGNxQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:53:16 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:42864 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756852AbbGGNxJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:53:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:52:56 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com Message-ID: <20150707135256.GQ2887@sirena.org.uk> References: <1436173112-21397-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1436173112-21397-10-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150707133245.GM2887@sirena.org.uk> <20150707134503.GG3182@x1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8RsyD0KswhpoK73Z" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150707134503.GG3182@x1> X-Cookie: Only fools are quoted. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 91.125.27.234 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [RESEND 09/10] regulator: pwm-regulator: Simplify voltage to duty-cycle call X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --8RsyD0KswhpoK73Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 02:45:03PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Mark Brown wrote: > > You just added this function in the previous patch? > You're right, it does look a little weird contained in a single > patch-set. The submission in the previous patch is the tried and > tested (i.e. in real releases) method written by ST. This patch > contains a simplification provided by me. IMO it looks and performs > better, but doesn't have the same time-under-test that the original > method does. I'm merely ensuring we keep some history in order so > provide and easy way back i.e. revert. > If I have any say at all, I'd really like to keep this piece of > history. OK, that makes sense - can you put the above in the commit message please? --8RsyD0KswhpoK73Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVm9m3AAoJECTWi3JdVIfQkbAH/1lMpNfYh0/zBia3TH1HAYAH qTs5kF6lJ4UiVRayEAdzhaQPLthq3ySjlRI9JWkCUDDcieXWbfl/uil8eqn8O4tX xlHce913YeNro5R+5Q8y5mla0SKx2wG7bPwKYOOGQdWQhEOE35z9Ja4TmHSYSbHY BRqN46peAzgJXMDQNE6YdhtMdV/GtGx/jbyJP1xCaHYTASC9878Bq/2GlfWH3j7Z FUQHV3oh3ngfPLqDhB3LMItIdm2kJ98bcr2iXz8r6m0O/NhllPbjy/pJ3Jlp8Ao5 2rc8jQJL52aJxSt7kcgiL8Rpn/MF12hoj+zDOkKNf/ho/sNk2q8Pc0kPlk1io0A= =spJK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8RsyD0KswhpoK73Z--