Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap-irq: use mask and val rather than using mask_buf_def

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 07:08:15AM +, Kim, Milo wrote: Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs, I have reformatted your mail for legibility. > Which is better understandable terminology ? 'mask and value' or > 'default mask and updated mask' I think 'mask & value' is more clear. But y

RE: [PATCH 1/2] regmap-irq: use mask and val rather than using mask_buf_def

: Not working. Other bits are cleared except flagged IRQ. Only one IRQ exists. Others are ignored. In both cases, it doesn't work with interrupt-unmasked-register scheme. To fix this issue, two patches were sent. The mask and value should be separated -- (1) and different bi

Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap-irq: use mask and val rather than using mask_buf_def

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:04:39AM +, Kim, Milo wrote: > Default mask value is used when updating irq registers. > Rather than using mask_buf_def[], use mask and value explicitly. Why? What is the problem you are seeing and what is the intended effect of this change? signature.asc Descripti

[PATCH 1/2] regmap-irq: use mask and val rather than using mask_buf_def

Default mask value is used when updating irq registers. Rather than using mask_buf_def[], use mask and value explicitly. (a) remove default mask buffer : mask_buf_def[] (b) add 'val_buf' for storing value of registers : val_buf is updated only when the irq is enabled or disabled (c) In irq_syn