On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 October 2014 15:02:46 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 14:14:02 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>
>> > Drivers that use
>> > existing bindings with the
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:00:33AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I folded your fixes into my patch and I'm going to send the result, with a
> changelog, in a reply to this message.
Thanks!
> If everyone is happy with it, I'll add it to the device properties patch
> series as it depends on tho
On Friday, October 24, 2014 10:34:36 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:51:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > OK, let's try to take that a bit farther. :-)
> >
> > With the (untested) patch below applied (which is a replacement for the one
> > sent previously), the driver
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:51:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> OK, let's try to take that a bit farther. :-)
>
> With the (untested) patch below applied (which is a replacement for the one
> sent previously), the driver can use static tables like these:
>
> static struct acpi_gpio_params re
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, October 23, 2014 03:56:55 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:21:06AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > OK, would the below make sense, then (completely untested, on top of the v6
>> > of the device pro
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 03:56:55 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:21:06AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > OK, would the below make sense, then (completely untested, on top of the v6
> > of the device properties patchset)?
>
> Yes it does :-)
>
> With the the below
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:21:06AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> OK, would the below make sense, then (completely untested, on top of the v6
> of the device properties patchset)?
Yes it does :-)
With the the below fix it works nicely with the modified rfkill-gpio.c
driver.
> +static bool acp
On Thursday 23 October 2014 15:02:46 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 14:14:02 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > Drivers that use
> > existing bindings with the "foo-gpio" form (or worse, "foo-somethingelse"
> > can use the
On Thursday 23 October 2014 15:10:55 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >
> > Then, the driver needs to do something like:
> >
> > if (!device_property_present(dev,
> > "known_property_that_should_be_present")
> > && ACPI_COMPANION(dev))
> > acpi_probe_gpios(dev);
> >
>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:28:40 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:51:40 Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 14:14:02 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> >
>> > We have enforced naming things for the dmaengine binding, which has
>> > just led to everyone calling things "rx" and "tx". My fear is that
>> > if we start to enforce giv
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 05:56:51 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:07:08PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Moreover, we need to clarify what situation we're really talking about.
> >
> > For one, drivers using the unified interface only will always use names for
> >
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:07:08PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Moreover, we need to clarify what situation we're really talking about.
>
> For one, drivers using the unified interface only will always use names for
> GPIOs, because they have to assume that either a DT or ACPI w/ _DSD is
> p
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:28:40 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:51:40 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10:44 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It expects that GPIOs
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:51:40 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10:44 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > >
> > > It expects that GPIOs returned from _CRS are in specific order. Since we
> > > can't change the
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:33:32AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10:44 Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >
> > It expects that GPIOs returned from _CRS are in specific order. Since we
> > can't change these existing ACPI tables, we must support them somehow.
> >
> > This pa
On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:10:44 Mika Westerberg wrote:
>
> It expects that GPIOs returned from _CRS are in specific order. Since we
> can't change these existing ACPI tables, we must support them somehow.
>
> This patch series handles it so that:
>
> 1) If we can't find given property (e
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 14:14:02 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > >
> > > We have enforced naming things for the dmaengine binding, which has
> > > just led to everyone calling things "rx" and "tx". My fear is that
> > > if we start to
On Tuesday 21 October 2014 14:14:02 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >
> > We have enforced naming things for the dmaengine binding, which has
> > just led to everyone calling things "rx" and "tx". My fear is that
> > if we start to enforce giving a name, we'd end up with lots of
> > drivers that use a "
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 20 October 2014 15:12:50 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Friday 17 October 2014 20:09:51 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >> On October 17, 2014 2:16:00 PM CEST, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
20 matches
Mail list logo