On 2016-03-30 9:46 PM, Yong Li wrote:
Thanks Ismo for your test. I can perform the two patches re-designing:
In linux-yocto-4.4, first revert the "drive" patch, then submit the
pcal9535 interrupt patch, then re-submit the "drive" patch. In the
mean time, I will send the pcal9535 interrupt patch to linux-gpio.
How do you think about it?
Sounds good to me.
Bruce
Yong
2016-03-31 0:38 GMT+08:00 Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com>:
On 16-03-30 07:34 AM, Puustinen, Ismo wrote:
Hi!
On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 16:37 +0800, Yong Li wrote:
Galileo gen 2 board uses the PCAL9535 as the GPIO expansion,
it is different from PCA9535 and includes interrupt mask/status
registers,
The current driver does not support the interrupt registers
configuration,
it causes some gpio pins cannot trigger interrupt events,
this patch fix this issue. The original patch was submitted by
Josef Ahmad <josef.ah...@linux.intel.com>
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel-quark/tree/recip
es-kernel/linux/files/0015-Quark-GPIO-1-2-quark.patch
Upstream-Status: submission pending
Signed-off-by: Yong Li <sdliy...@gmail.com>
I tried out this patch briefly and it appears to work. At least I could
get proper interrupt events on ADC pins on Galileo 2.
However, we should IMHO move this patch below the custom "drive"
property patch in the kernel git tree (and modify the drive property
patch accordingly). This patch could then be submitted to real kernel
upstream because it wouldn't depend on patches that can't upstreamed.
We could do this, but we need a revert, this patch fixed up, and then
the modified custom driver property patch. Since the tree is fast
forward, and I only rebase when jumping kernel versions.
If someone want to do that, I'll take the patches, since something
upstream ready is preferable.
I'll hold off merging this until I hear one way or the other.
Bruce
Ismo
--
_______________________________________________
linux-yocto mailing list
linux-yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/linux-yocto
