On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:57 AM, NeilBrown wrote:
> it means that if !gpio_is_valid(gpio), the error returned is EPROBE_DEFER
> which isn't right (an invalid gpio number will never become valid).
> If a driver happened to use gpio_request to check the validity of the gpio
> rather than doing it
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:57 AM, NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote:
it means that if !gpio_is_valid(gpio), the error returned is EPROBE_DEFER
which isn't right (an invalid gpio number will never become valid).
If a driver happened to use gpio_request to check the validity of the gpio
rather than
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:47:24PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> ... though it occurs to me that it is possible that the GPIO number might not
> be allocated until something else has been probed, so a -ve gpio number could
> mean "there is no such gpio" or it could mean "gpio has not been allocated
>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:47:24PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
... though it occurs to me that it is possible that the GPIO number might not
be allocated until something else has been probed, so a -ve gpio number could
mean there is no such gpio or it could mean gpio has not been allocated
yet.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:36:15 +0100 Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:57:33PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > it means that if !gpio_is_valid(gpio), the error returned is EPROBE_DEFER
> > which isn't right (an invalid gpio number will never become valid).
> > If a driver happened to
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:57:33PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> it means that if !gpio_is_valid(gpio), the error returned is EPROBE_DEFER
> which isn't right (an invalid gpio number will never become valid).
> If a driver happened to use gpio_request to check the validity of the gpio
> rather than
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:48:57 +0200 Linus Walleij
wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
> for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants "merge" branch prior to his
> absence was merged in as a base for this patch series.
>
> The following is the same
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:48:57 +0200 Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org
wrote:
Hi Linus,
in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants merge branch prior to his
absence was merged in as a base for this patch series.
The following
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:57:33PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
it means that if !gpio_is_valid(gpio), the error returned is EPROBE_DEFER
which isn't right (an invalid gpio number will never become valid).
If a driver happened to use gpio_request to check the validity of the gpio
rather than
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:36:15 +0100 Mark Brown
broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:57:33PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
it means that if !gpio_is_valid(gpio), the error returned is EPROBE_DEFER
which isn't right (an invalid gpio number will never become valid).
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:37:05AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Better page the MXC people so they can scream if something
> goes wild.
>
Just tested the driver a little bit, and it still works for me.
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:37:05AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
Better page the MXC people so they can scream if something
goes wild.
Just tested the driver a little bit, and it still works for me.
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
>>
>> in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
>> for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants "merge" branch prior to his
>> absence was merged in as a base for
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org
wrote:
in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants merge branch prior to his
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
> for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants "merge" branch prior to his
> absence was merged in as a base for this patch series.
Please verify my conflict resolution in
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org wrote:
in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants merge branch prior to his
absence was merged in as a base for this patch series.
Please verify my conflict
Hi Linus,
in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants "merge" branch prior to his
absence was merged in as a base for this patch series.
The following is the same information as found in the tag:
GPIO changes for v3.6:
- New driver for
Hi Linus,
in Grants absence, these are my queued and -next-tested changes
for v3.6, please pull them in. Grants merge branch prior to his
absence was merged in as a base for this patch series.
The following is the same information as found in the tag:
GPIO changes for v3.6:
- New driver for
18 matches
Mail list logo
