Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fix ir-rx51 by using PWM pdata

From: [email-masked] (Ivaylo Dimitrov)
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:52:11 +0300

Hi,

On 29.04.2016 00:27, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Ivaylo Dimitrov <[email-masked]> [160428 14:21]:
>>
>> I didn't test legacy boot, as I don't really see any value of doing it now
>> the end of the legacy boot is near, the driver does not function correctly,
>> however the patchset at least allows for the driver to be build and we have
>> something to improve on. And I am going to send a patch that fixes the
>> problem with omap_dm_timer_request_specific(). So, for both patches, you may
>> add:
>>
>> Tested-by: Ivaylo Dimitrov <[email-masked]>
>
> OK thanks.
>
> Mauro, do the driver changes look OK to you?
>
> If so, I could queue the driver too for v4.7 because of the
> dependency with your ack. Or I can provide you an immutable
> branch with just the pdata changes against v4.6-rc1 if you
> prefer that.
>

In the meanwhile I was able to make the driver functional (on top of the 
$subject series) - for that purpose I had to fix dmtimer.c - it turns 
out that PM runtime get()/put() is called in almost every function 
exported by dmtimer, which in turn slows down IR transmission to 4-5s 
instead of 0.5s. I also replaced GPT9 dmtimer with PWM framework API 
(pwm-omap-dmtimer needs a patch) and implemented some DT support.

Now, how shall I proceed with those - wait for the $subject series to be 
accepted or post the patches now?

Tony, I was unable to find the tree on kernel.org your patches are in. 
Which tree to use to base my patches on?

Thanks,
Ivo