* Thierry Reding [140108 11:32]:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 08:40:41AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with the interrupt related code paths, we're just
> > trying to call the functions at a wrong time when thing are not yet
> > initialized.
>
> The patch won't get rid o
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 21:24:08 Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> The problem with devres, or any other solution for that matter, is that
> for the cases where we'd need something like this (that is, statically
> allocated devices in board setup code) we don't have a fully initialized
> struct devic
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 09:09:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 20:59:10 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 08 January 2014, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:11:08PM +0100,
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 20:59:10 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2014, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The more I think about the iommu case, the mo
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 January 2014, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 15:55:27 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > > It stands to reason that if they push bac
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 08:40:41AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Thierry Reding [140108 04:55]:
> > When devices are probed from the device tree, any interrupts that they
> > reference are resolved at device creation time. This causes problems if
> > the interrupt provider hasn't been registered
* Thierry Reding [140108 04:55]:
> When devices are probed from the device tree, any interrupts that they
> reference are resolved at device creation time. This causes problems if
> the interrupt provider hasn't been registered yet at that time, which
> results in the interrupt being set to 0.
>
On Wednesday 08 January 2014, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 15:55:27 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > It stands to reason that if they push back on the IOMMU variant of what
> > > is essentially the same thing, the
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 15:55:27 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:41:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:51:17 Thierry Reding wrote:
[...]
> > Actually I posted a round of pa
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 15:55:27 Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:41:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:51:17 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > I hope I read this thread correctly, sorry if I missed an important
> > part. My idea was to add the code
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:41:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:51:17 Thierry Reding wrote:
> > When devices are probed from the device tree, any interrupts that they
> > reference are resolved at device creation time. This causes problems if
> > the interrupt provi
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:51:17 Thierry Reding wrote:
> When devices are probed from the device tree, any interrupts that they
> reference are resolved at device creation time. This causes problems if
> the interrupt provider hasn't been registered yet at that time, which
> results in the int
12 matches
Mail list logo
