On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:55:25PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > I *have* asked you to communicate more clearly about what you're doing
> > but that doesn't mean to stop sending code, it means to have clearer
> > words around what you're sending.
> That's not how I interpreted your words:
>
> > > I made the suggestion then later on realised that this was actively
> > > going to break things I care about so I actually need it fixing.
>
> > I'm a little taken aback and annoyed by this. In a previous email thread
> > you categorically requested that I discuss some of the important
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:17:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> I was saying that in order for the MFD core to carry out the hwirq->virq
> conversion, it needed to obtain the irqdomain pointer pertaining to the
> provided hwirq. The only helper function the irqdomain subsystem provides
> requires a
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:52:07PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:02:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > > another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain
> > > > it without having direct
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:52:07PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:02:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain
it without having direct access is
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 09:17:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
I was saying that in order for the MFD core to carry out the hwirq-virq
conversion, it needed to obtain the irqdomain pointer pertaining to the
provided hwirq. The only helper function the irqdomain subsystem provides
requires a
I made the suggestion then later on realised that this was actively
going to break things I care about so I actually need it fixing.
I'm a little taken aback and annoyed by this. In a previous email thread
you categorically requested that I discuss some of the important changes
with
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:55:25PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
I *have* asked you to communicate more clearly about what you're doing
but that doesn't mean to stop sending code, it means to have clearer
words around what you're sending.
That's not how I interpreted your words:
What you can
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:02:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain
> > > it without having direct access is via a device node.
> > This doesn't actually hold.
>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > What makes you say this? This is just a convenience for finding a
> > > domain, irqdomains are
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > What makes you say this? This is just a convenience for finding a
> > domain, irqdomains are *completely* indepentant of device tree.
> How can you say that? I think you
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:56:19AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > Wherever we do this from to be able to obtain the IRQ domain pointer,
> > which is where I'm currently struggling. Our options are:
>
> > - If we're only talking MFD
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:56:19AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Wherever we do this from to be able to obtain the IRQ domain pointer,
> which is where I'm currently struggling. Our options are:
> - If we're only talking MFD here, we can handle this stuff in the MFD
> core, but we need more
> > If they don't have linear domains there's no point, if they support DT
> > then they can use it as it is.
>
> All this stuff just works for any IRQ domain type, there's no
> requirement for a particular one. It's not urgently exciting for legacy
> domains but it's not harmful either and
If they don't have linear domains there's no point, if they support DT
then they can use it as it is.
All this stuff just works for any IRQ domain type, there's no
requirement for a particular one. It's not urgently exciting for legacy
domains but it's not harmful either and pushes all
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:56:19AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Wherever we do this from to be able to obtain the IRQ domain pointer,
which is where I'm currently struggling. Our options are:
- If we're only talking MFD here, we can handle this stuff in the MFD
core, but we need more
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:56:19AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Wherever we do this from to be able to obtain the IRQ domain pointer,
which is where I'm currently struggling. Our options are:
- If we're only talking MFD here, we
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
What makes you say this? This is just a convenience for finding a
domain, irqdomains are *completely* indepentant of device tree.
How can you say that? I think you mean
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
What makes you say this? This is just a convenience for finding a
domain, irqdomains are *completely*
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:02:46PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain
it without having direct access is via a device node.
This doesn't actually hold.
Okay, besides
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 05:49:50PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > All of the regmap devices could use this.
> Only if they have linear domains and don't support DT.
Neither of those restrictions really apply...
> If they don't have
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > Right, that was the initial intention. It would be a trivial semantic
> > change if drivers without DT support wished to use the functionality
> > though. However, the
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Right, that was the initial intention. It would be a trivial semantic
> change if drivers without DT support wished to use the functionality
> though. However, the only examples I found of a non-DT enabled driver
> that could make good
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:10:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:36:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> > > Yes but I think I saw this other patch set from Lee, hitting
> > > irqdomain, OF and MFD to actually
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:36:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Yes but I think I saw this other patch set from Lee, hitting
> > irqdomain, OF and MFD to actually fix this ... or did I get
> > it wrong?
> No, you're not wrong.
>
From: Lee Jones
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:45:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Provide the PRCMU with its own IRQ domain
The PRCMU has its own USB, Thermal, GPIO, Modem, HSI and RTC drivers,
amongst other things. This patch allows those subordinate devices to
use it as an interrupt controller as
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:29:14AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > +static struct irq_domain *db8500_irq_domain;
>
> So this is a good idea.
Did you mean this, or did you mean that it's _not_ a good idea?
If the latter is true, where would
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> > +int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
> >>
> >> And I'm
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
+int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:29:14AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
+static struct irq_domain *db8500_irq_domain;
So this is a good idea.
Did you mean this, or did you mean that it's _not_ a good idea?
If the latter is
From: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:45:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Provide the PRCMU with its own IRQ domain
The PRCMU has its own USB, Thermal, GPIO, Modem, HSI and RTC drivers,
amongst other things. This patch allows those subordinate devices to
use it as an
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:36:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
Yes but I think I saw this other patch set from Lee, hitting
irqdomain, OF and MFD to actually fix this ... or did I get
it wrong?
No, you're not wrong.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:10:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:36:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:44:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
Yes but I think I saw this other patch set from Lee, hitting
irqdomain, OF and MFD to actually fix this
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Right, that was the initial intention. It would be a trivial semantic
change if drivers without DT support wished to use the functionality
though. However, the only examples I found of a non-DT enabled driver
that could make good use
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:55:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Right, that was the initial intention. It would be a trivial semantic
change if drivers without DT support wished to use the functionality
though. However, the only
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 05:49:50PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
All of the regmap devices could use this.
Only if they have linear domains and don't support DT.
Neither of those restrictions really apply...
If they don't have linear
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>> > +int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
>>
>> And I'm sceptic about this business. Why isn't this physical-to virtual
>> mapping
On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > +static struct irq_domain *db8500_irq_domain;
>
> So this is a good idea.
>
> > +int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
>
> And I'm sceptic about this business. Why isn't this physical-to
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> +static struct irq_domain *db8500_irq_domain;
So this is a good idea.
> +int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
And I'm sceptic about this business. Why isn't this physical-to virtual
mapping business confined to the core MFD driver? But enlighten
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
+static struct irq_domain *db8500_irq_domain;
So this is a good idea.
+int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
And I'm sceptic about this business. Why isn't this physical-to virtual
mapping business confined to the core MFD
On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
+static struct irq_domain *db8500_irq_domain;
So this is a good idea.
+int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
And I'm sceptic about this business. Why isn't this
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
+int db8500_irq_get_virq(int irq);
And I'm sceptic about this business. Why isn't this physical-to
The PRCMU has its own USB, Thermal, GPIO, Modem, HSI and RTC drivers,
amongst other things. This patch allows those subordinate devices to
use it as an interrupt controller as and when they are DT enabled.
CC: Samuel Ortiz
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
---
drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c | 54
The PRCMU has its own USB, Thermal, GPIO, Modem, HSI and RTC drivers,
amongst other things. This patch allows those subordinate devices to
use it as an interrupt controller as and when they are DT enabled.
CC: Samuel Ortiz sa...@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
44 matches
Mail list logo
