Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the regulator tree

From: Doug Anderson
Date: Mon Jul 11 2016 - 12:47:40 EST


On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in:
> drivers/regulator/pwm-regulator.c
> between commit:
> 830583004e61 ("regulator: pwm: Drop unneeded pwm_enable() call")
> 27bfa8893b15 ("regulator: pwm: Support for enable GPIO")
> c2588393e631 ("regulator: pwm: Fix regulator ramp delay for continuous mode")
> from the regulator tree and commit:
> b0303deaa480 ("regulator: pwm: Adjust PWM config at probe time")
> 8bd57ca236d0 ("regulator: pwm: Switch to the atomic PWM API")
> 25d16595935b ("regulator: pwm: Retrieve correct voltage")
> 53f239af4c14 ("regulator: pwm: Support extra continuous mode cases")
> from the pwm tree.
> I fixed it up (I think, please check - see below) and can carry the fix
> as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but
> any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

[ cut ]

> - /* Delay required by PWM regulator to settle to the new voltage */
> - usleep_range(ramp_delay, ramp_delay + 1000);
> + /* Ramp delay is in uV/uS. Adjust to uS and delay */
> + ramp_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay);

This was what I was worried about and why I originally sent my patch
based upon Boris's series. The above should be:

ramp_delay = DIV_ROUND_UP(abs(req_min_uV - old_uV), ramp_delay);

Specifically note the use of "req_min_uV" and not "min_uV".