Andrii Tseglytskyi <[email protected]> writes:
> On 05/29/2013 12:58 PM, Andrii Tseglytskyi wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your comments.
>>
>> On 05/28/2013 09:45 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Andrii Tseglytskyi <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> From: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> vpboundsintr_en is available inside the IP block as an re-sycned
>>>> version and one which is not. Due to this, there is an 1 sysclk
>>>> cycle window where interruptz could be asserted low for 1 cycle.
>>> ^^^
>>>
>>> Is that the way the cool kidz are spelling interrupts these days? ;)
>>
>> Oh! Shame on me. Thank you for catching this :)
>
> Shame on me again (((. Name "interruptz" is more less OK. This is the
> name of signal between Voltage Processor and SmartReflex.
> In documentation it is referenced as "SR_SInterruptz". Anyway commit
> message should be updated to make this more clear.
Ah, OK. Makes sense now.
Yes, the changlog should be more clear that this is referring to a
signal name, e.g.
...there is an 1 sysclk cycle window where the SR_SInterruptz
signal could be asserted low.
(also note that I think the "for once cycle" that ends that phrase in
the original changelog is redundant, since it already says a "1 sysclk
cycle window".
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
