On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 13:37 +0000, eugen.hris...@microchip.com wrote: > [External] > > On 02.06.2020 11:54, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 07:50:23 +0000 > > "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.ardel...@analog.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2020-05-31 at 16:40 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > On Mon, 25 May 2020 14:38:55 +0300 > > > > Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardel...@analog.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Lars-Peter Clausen <l...@metafoo.de> > > > > > > > > > > This patch should be squashed into the first one, as the first one is > > > > > breaking the build (intentionally) to make the IIO core files easier > > > > > to > > > > > review. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <l...@metafoo.de> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardel...@analog.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Friend poke. Version log? > > > > > > Version log is in the first patch. > > > I was wondering if I omitted it. > > > Seems, this time I didn't. But I admit, it probably would have been better > > > here. > > Ah fair enough. That works fine if there is a cover letter but not > > so much just putting things in the first patch! > > > > Other than the wistful comment below (which I'm not expecting you to > > > > do anything about btw!) whole series looks good to me. > > > > > > > > These are obviously no functional changes (I think) so it's only really > > > > patch 2 that > > > > could do with more eyes and acks. > > > > > > > > Far as I can tell that case is fine as well because of the protections > > > > on being in the right mode, but more eyes on that would be great. > > > > > > > > So assuming that's fine, what commit message do you want me to use for > > > > the fused single patch? > > > > > > Commit message-wise: I think the message in the first commit would be > > > mostly sufficient. > > > No idea what other description would be needed. > > > > > > So, maybe something like: > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > All devices using a triggered buffer need to attach and detach the trigger > > > to the device in order to properly work. Instead of doing this in each and > > > every driver by hand move this into the core. > > > > > > At this point in time, all drivers should have been resolved to > > > attach/detach the poll-function in the same order. > > > > > > This patch removes all explicit calls of iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() > > > & iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() in all drivers, since the core handles > > > now the pollfunc attach/detach. > > > > > > The more peculiar change is for the 'at91-sama5d2_adc' driver, since it's > > > not obvious that removing the hooks doesn't break anything** > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Looks good. > > > > > ** for the comment about 'at91-sama5d2_adc', we really do need to get some > > > testing; otherwise this risks breaking it. > > Hi, > > I can test it, do we have any patchwork so I can easily download the > patches ? > I have issues when applying them.
Is this good? https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11568743/ Series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-iio/list/?series=293141 Many thanks Alex > > Thanks ! > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > static const struct iio_trigger_ops atlas_interrupt_trigger_ops = { > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c > > > > > b/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c > > > > > index 17606eca42b4..8e13c53d4360 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c > > > > > @@ -99,20 +99,6 @@ static irqreturn_t iio_simple_dummy_trigger_h(int > > > > > irq, void *p) > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops > > > > > iio_simple_dummy_buffer_setup_ops = { > > > > > - /* > > > > > - * iio_triggered_buffer_postenable: > > > > > - * Generic function that simply attaches the pollfunc to the > > > > > trigger. > > > > > - * Replace this to mess with hardware state before we attach the > > > > > - * trigger. > > > > > - */ > > > > > - .postenable = &iio_triggered_buffer_postenable, > > > > > - /* > > > > > - * iio_triggered_buffer_predisable: > > > > > - * Generic function that simple detaches the pollfunc from the > > > > > trigger. > > > > > - * Replace this to put hardware state back again after the trigger > > > > > is > > > > > - * detached but before userspace knows we have disabled the ring. > > > > > - */ > > > > > - .predisable = &iio_triggered_buffer_predisable, > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > Hmm. Guess we should probably 'invent' a reason to illustrate the bufer > > > > ops in the dummy example. Anyone feeling creative? > > > _______________________________________________ > > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > > > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel__;!!A3Ni8CS0y2Y!ulH92S3o_JWLMQfg5VBrFknwc_-a0K5AHpJBrTEB-RtYEp7PnRJ9jA_EacOzFQmbNIKO-Q$ > > >
