On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> The POWER_SEQ_*_TYPE macros are defined in the C files. It's the
>> simplest way to initialize this table, and the code inside these C
>> files is short and simple enough that I thought I would be forgiven.
>> :)
>
> I think in the header
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Anton Vorontsov cbouatmai...@gmail.com wrote:
The POWER_SEQ_*_TYPE macros are defined in the C files. It's the
simplest way to initialize this table, and the code inside these C
files is short and simple enough that I thought I would be forgiven.
:)
I think
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Given there are several ARM platforms that may have an interest in this,
> please
> consider posting this to the ARM mailing list:
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org.
That's right. New revision on the way.
>> +Similarly, each
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 06:44:22PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 04:26 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> >>+#include "power_seq_delay.c"
> >>+#include "power_seq_regulator.c"
> >>+#include "power_seq_pwm.c"
> >>+#include "power_seq_gpio.c"
> >
> >This is odd, although I remember you
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 06:38:21AM +, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Some device drivers (e.g. panel or backlights) need to follow precise
> sequences for powering on and off, involving GPIOs, regulators, PWMs
> with a precise powering order and delays to respect between steps.
> These sequences
On 11/16/2012 04:26 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+#include "power_seq_delay.c"
+#include "power_seq_regulator.c"
+#include "power_seq_pwm.c"
+#include "power_seq_gpio.c"
This is odd, although I remember you already explained why you have to
include the .c files, instead of linking them
On 16/11/12 08:31, Alex Courbot wrote:
> Hi Srinivas,
>
> On Friday 16 November 2012 15:58:29 Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>> I am looking forward for this feature to be mainlined,
> *cough* Ack *cough* :)
:-)
>> but I have
>> comment on the way the types are tied up to power seq
Hi Srinivas,
On Friday 16 November 2012 15:58:29 Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> I am looking forward for this feature to be mainlined,
*cough* Ack *cough* :)
> but I have
> comment on the way the types are tied up to power seq infrastructure.
> I know your use case are limited to using
Hi Alex,
I am looking forward for this feature to be mainlined, but I have
comment on the way the types are tied up to power seq infrastructure.
I know your use case are limited to using type "delay", "pwm" and "gpio"
and "regulator", However there are instances where the devices can be
powered up
Hi Alex,
I am looking forward for this feature to be mainlined, but I have
comment on the way the types are tied up to power seq infrastructure.
I know your use case are limited to using type delay, pwm and gpio
and regulator, However there are instances where the devices can be
powered up or
Hi Srinivas,
On Friday 16 November 2012 15:58:29 Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
Hi Alex,
I am looking forward for this feature to be mainlined,
*cough* Ack *cough* :)
but I have
comment on the way the types are tied up to power seq infrastructure.
I know your use case are limited to using type
On 16/11/12 08:31, Alex Courbot wrote:
Hi Srinivas,
On Friday 16 November 2012 15:58:29 Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
Hi Alex,
I am looking forward for this feature to be mainlined,
*cough* Ack *cough* :)
:-)
but I have
comment on the way the types are tied up to power seq infrastructure.
I
On 11/16/2012 04:26 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+#include power_seq_delay.c
+#include power_seq_regulator.c
+#include power_seq_pwm.c
+#include power_seq_gpio.c
This is odd, although I remember you already explained why you have to
include the .c files, instead of linking them separately. But I
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 06:38:21AM +, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (e.g. panel or backlights) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving GPIOs, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect between steps.
These sequences are
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 06:44:22PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 11/16/2012 04:26 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+#include power_seq_delay.c
+#include power_seq_regulator.c
+#include power_seq_pwm.c
+#include power_seq_gpio.c
This is odd, although I remember you already explained why you have
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Given there are several ARM platforms that may have an interest in this,
please
consider posting this to the ARM mailing list:
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org.
That's right. New revision on the way.
Hi Alexandre,
The code looks neat, thanks for you work!
Just a couple of comments...
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 03:38:21PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[...]
> +
> +#include "power_seq_delay.c"
> +#include "power_seq_regulator.c"
> +#include "power_seq_pwm.c"
> +#include "power_seq_gpio.c"
Some device drivers (e.g. panel or backlights) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving GPIOs, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect between steps.
These sequences are device-specific, and do not belong to a particular
driver - therefore
Some device drivers (e.g. panel or backlights) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving GPIOs, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect between steps.
These sequences are device-specific, and do not belong to a particular
driver - therefore
Hi Alexandre,
The code looks neat, thanks for you work!
Just a couple of comments...
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 03:38:21PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[...]
+
+#include power_seq_delay.c
+#include power_seq_regulator.c
+#include power_seq_pwm.c
+#include power_seq_gpio.c
This is odd,
20 matches
Mail list logo
