Hi,
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:36 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> this is an impressive patch.
>
> We definitely need to touch base with Bjorn on this, preferably also
> Sboyd.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:35 PM Douglas Anderson wrote:
>
> > Fixes: 4b7618fdc7e6 ("pinctrl: qcom: Add
Quoting Doug Anderson (2021-01-14 09:58:55)
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:14 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -195,6 +201,20 @@ static int msm_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev
> > > *pctldev,
> > > if (WARN_ON(i == g->nfuncs))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > >
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:14 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > @@ -195,6 +201,20 @@ static int msm_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev
> > *pctldev,
> > if (WARN_ON(i == g->nfuncs))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + /*
> > +* If an GPIO interrupt is setup on this
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:15 AM Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
>
> > > @@ -195,6 +201,20 @@ static int msm_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev
> > > *pctldev,
> > > if (WARN_ON(i == g->nfuncs))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > +* If an GPIO interrupt
On Thu 14 Jan 01:14 CST 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Douglas Anderson (2021-01-08 09:35:16)
> > Let's deal with the problem like this:
> > * When we mux away, we'll mask our interrupt. This isn't necessary in
> > the above case since the client already masked us, but it's a good
> >
On Thu 14 Jan 01:14 CST 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Douglas Anderson (2021-01-08 09:35:16)
> > Let's deal with the problem like this:
> > * When we mux away, we'll mask our interrupt. This isn't necessary in
> > the above case since the client already masked us, but it's a good
> >
Quoting Douglas Anderson (2021-01-08 09:35:16)
> Let's deal with the problem like this:
> * When we mux away, we'll mask our interrupt. This isn't necessary in
> the above case since the client already masked us, but it's a good
> idea in general.
> * When we mux back will clear any
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the patch. Looks good to me and tested.
Reviewed-by: Maulik Shah
Tested-by: Maulik Shah
Thanks,
Maulik
On 1/8/2021 11:05 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
In Linux, if a driver does disable_irq() and later does enable_irq()
on its interrupt, I believe it's expecting these
Hi Doug,
this is an impressive patch.
We definitely need to touch base with Bjorn on this, preferably also
Sboyd.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:35 PM Douglas Anderson wrote:
> Fixes: 4b7618fdc7e6 ("pinctrl: qcom: Add irq_enable callback for msm gpio")
> Fixes: 71266d9d3936 ("pinctrl: qcom: Move
In Linux, if a driver does disable_irq() and later does enable_irq()
on its interrupt, I believe it's expecting these properties:
* If an interrupt was pending when the driver disabled then it will
still be pending after the driver re-enables.
* If an edge-triggered interrupt comes in while an
10 matches
Mail list logo
