Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-24 Thread Pavel Machek
On Fri 2018-10-19 07:58:12, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Dan Murphy [181019 11:42]: > > On 10/18/2018 05:10 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > Now... this is what I've suggested before. If you don't agree, you may > > > want to contact Tony Lindgren, IIRC he works for TI, too, and might be > > > wil

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-19 Thread Tony Lindgren
* Dan Murphy [181019 11:42]: > On 10/18/2018 05:10 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Now... this is what I've suggested before. If you don't agree, you may > > want to contact Tony Lindgren, IIRC he works for TI, too, and might be > > willing to help. > > I will ping Tony just to close the loop. I

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-19 Thread Dan Murphy
On 10/18/2018 05:10 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Given this one seems to have not really been finished, it's probably >> okay to make changes in this case. Still, it would be good to see >> patches structured so that it's obvious we're breaking things. But how >> the patches

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-18 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > Given this one seems to have not really been finished, it's probably > okay to make changes in this case. Still, it would be good to see > patches structured so that it's obvious we're breaking things. But how > the patches are structured doesn't matter until there's some

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-16 Thread Dan Murphy
Thanks On 10/15/2018 04:45 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > Given this one seems to have not really been finished, it's probably okay to make changes in this case. Still, it would be good to see patches structured so that it's obvious we're breaking things. But how the patches

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-15 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > >> Given this one seems to have not really been finished, it's probably > >> okay to make changes in this case. Still, it would be good to see > >> patches structured so that it's obvious we're breaking things. But how > >> the patches are structured doesn't matter until there's some agreeme

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-15 Thread Dan Murphy
Jacek On 10/15/2018 02:13 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > On 10/15/2018 02:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM Jacek Anaszewski >> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/12/2018 08:03 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! > Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy NAK. >>> >>

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-15 Thread Jacek Anaszewski
On 10/15/2018 02:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM Jacek Anaszewski > wrote: >> >> On 10/12/2018 08:03 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >>> Hi! >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy >>> >>> NAK. >> >> Thanks for the NAK. >> >> This NAK was NAK'd by other

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-14 Thread Rob Herring
On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > > On 10/12/2018 08:03 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy > > > > NAK. > > Thanks for the NAK. > > This NAK was NAK'd by other maintainer in the V2 RFC patchset > > h

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-13 Thread Jacek Anaszewski
On 10/12/2018 08:03 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy > > NAK. Thanks for the NAK. This NAK was NAK'd by other maintainer in the V2 RFC patchset https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/993171/ >>> >>> I confirm. LM3697 is a stan

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-12 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy > > >> > > >> NAK. > > > > > > Thanks for the NAK. > > > > > > This NAK was NAK'd by other maintainer in the V2 RFC patchset > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/993171/ > > > > I confirm. LM3697 is a standalone device and not a cell of any

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-12 Thread Rob Herring
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 09:38:53PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > On 10/11/2018 08:34 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: > > Pavel > > > > On 10/11/2018 01:27 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> On Thu 2018-10-11 11:51:16, Dan Murphy wrote: > >>> Remove support for the LM3697 LED device > >>> from the ti-lmu. The

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-12 Thread Lee Jones
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Dan Murphy wrote: > Remove support for the LM3697 LED device > from the ti-lmu. The LM3697 will be supported > via a stand alone LED driver. What's with the odd 50 char line wrapping? > Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/ti-lmu.txt| 26 +

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-11 Thread Jacek Anaszewski
On 10/11/2018 08:34 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: > Pavel > > On 10/11/2018 01:27 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> On Thu 2018-10-11 11:51:16, Dan Murphy wrote: >>> Remove support for the LM3697 LED device >>> from the ti-lmu. The LM3697 will be supported >>> via a stand alone LED driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-11 Thread Dan Murphy
Pavel On 10/11/2018 01:27 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2018-10-11 11:51:16, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Remove support for the LM3697 LED device >> from the ti-lmu. The LM3697 will be supported >> via a stand alone LED driver. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy > > NAK. Thanks for the NAK. This NAK

Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697

2018-10-11 Thread Pavel Machek
On Thu 2018-10-11 11:51:16, Dan Murphy wrote: > Remove support for the LM3697 LED device > from the ti-lmu. The LM3697 will be supported > via a stand alone LED driver. > > Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy NAK. Pavel