On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Grant Likely
grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:31:24 -0500, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/26/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:31:24 -0500, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/26/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
So:
+static int omap_gpio_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
+
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/26/2013 02:27 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
You will just have to give the xlate function information about which
GPIOs are used as IRQs only, and only request the GPIO on these.
That should not be necessary. The xlate is
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 04/14/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
This is a pretty hard design pattern to properly replicate in every such
driver is it not?
Well, instead of adding .request_irq() to the irqchip, and then making
each
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
I am still concerned about the case where a driver may have already
called gpio_request() and then calls request_irq(). I think that the
solution needs to handle cases where the driver may or may not call
gpio_request() to
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 04/16/2013 05:14 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
c) I have the feeling that hooking the of_xlate function for this is a
bit of an abuse of the function.
I was wondering about that. So I was grep'ing through the various
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
So:
+static int omap_gpio_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
+ struct device_node *ctrlr,
+ const u32 *intspec, unsigned int
On 04/26/2013 02:27 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 04/16/2013 05:14 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
c) I have the feeling that hooking the of_xlate function for this is a
bit of an abuse of the function.
I was wondering about
On 04/26/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
So:
+static int omap_gpio_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
+ struct device_node *ctrlr,
+
On 04/17/2013 02:55 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
There are so many patches flying around in this thread that I missed it :-)
Sorry about that...
No problem.
I was trying to see if we could find a common solution that everyone
could use as it seems that ideally we should all
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 02:55 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
There are so many patches flying around in this thread that I missed it :-)
Sorry about that...
No problem.
I was trying to see if we could find a common
On 04/17/2013 08:42 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 02:55 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
There are so many patches flying around in this thread that I missed it :-)
Sorry about that...
No
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 08:42 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 02:55 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
There are so many patches flying
On 04/16/2013 05:14 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/16/2013 05:11 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:04 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
...
If some driver is calling gpio_request() directly, then they will
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 08:42 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 02:55 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
There are so many patches flying
On 04/16/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:04 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
...
mmc {
label = pandaboard::status2;
gpios = gpio1 8 0;
...
};
But that's a gpio-leds instance,
On 04/16/2013 02:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
...
Right. In the DT case though, if someone does provide the IRQ and GPIO
IDs then at least they would use a different xlate function. Another
option to consider would be defining the #interrupt-cells = 3 where we
would have ...
cell-#1 -- IRQ
On 04/16/2013 01:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:04 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
...
If some driver is calling gpio_request() directly, then they will most
likely just call gpio_to_irq() when requesting the interrupt and so the
xlate function
On 04/16/2013 05:11 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:04 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
...
If some driver is calling gpio_request() directly, then they will most
likely just call gpio_to_irq() when
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/16/2013 05:11 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:04 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
...
If some driver is calling gpio_request()
On 04/16/2013 07:41 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 04/16/2013 05:11 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/16/2013 01:40 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:04 PM, Jon
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Linus Walleij
linus.wall...@linaro.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that would
be the right approach?
Hi Linus, thanks a lot for
On 04/13/2013 07:35 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that would
be the right approach?
...
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
...
+static int omap_gpio_irq_request(struct irq_data *d)
+{
+
On 04/14/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that would
be the right approach?
This looks sort of OK, but I'm still struggling with the
On 04/15/2013 11:53 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/13/2013 07:35 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that would
be the right approach?
...
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
...
+static int
On 04/15/2013 11:58 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/14/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that would
be the right approach?
This looks sort
On 04/15/2013 04:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/15/2013 11:58 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/14/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that
On 04/15/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/15/2013 11:58 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/14/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that
On 04/15/2013 05:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/15/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 04/15/2013 11:58 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/14/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following inlined patch [1] what you were thinking that would
be the right approach?
This looks sort of OK, but I'm still struggling with the question of
what we could do to help other
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 04/11/2013 04:16 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
So the only reason I'm rambing on about this
On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 04/10/2013 12:12 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
If the information is there, whether to convert from IRQ to GPIO
or from GPIO to IRQ is a technicality and any order
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
So the only reason I'm rambing on about this is that it breaks the
I'm not sure I understand this paragraph; what is it in the line above.
If it is this patch, then
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Linus Walleij
linus.wall...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
So the only reason I'm rambing on about this is that it breaks the
I'm not sure I
On 04/11/2013 04:16 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
So the only reason I'm rambing on about this is that it breaks the
I'm not sure I understand this paragraph; what is it
On 04/11/2013 04:16 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
So the only reason I'm rambing on about this is that it breaks the
I'm not sure I understand this paragraph; what is it
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 03/27/2013 02:55 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
This is the case for some SMSC911x clients like the snowball
routing it to a GPIO, whereas I
On 04/10/2013 12:12 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 03/27/2013 02:55 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
This is the case for some SMSC911x clients like
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 04/10/2013 12:12 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
If the information is there, whether to convert from IRQ to GPIO
or from GPIO to IRQ is a technicality and any order should be
feasible in some way?
There isn't always
On Wednesday 10 April 2013 14:29:17 Stephen Warren wrote:
If the information is there, whether to convert from IRQ to GPIO
or from GPIO to IRQ is a technicality and any order should be
feasible in some way?
There isn't always a unique 1:1 mapping between GPIOs and IRQs. Put
another
On 03/27/2013 02:55 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
It's simply that if a device emits an IRQ, there's no reason to assume
that the IRQ is in fact a GPIO. It might be a dedicated IRQ input pin
and not something that
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 03/22/2013 10:33 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 03/22/2013 02:10 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
This is just turning everything on it's head. The normal order of things
is this sequence for GPIO 14 something like:
On 03/27/2013 07:52 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 03/22/2013 10:33 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 03/22/2013 02:10 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
This is just turning everything on it's head. The normal order of things
is this
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
It's simply that if a device emits an IRQ, there's no reason to assume
that the IRQ is in fact a GPIO. It might be a dedicated IRQ input pin
and not something that gpiolib (or any other GPIO API) knows about.
OK
On 03/22/2013 02:10 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
index 159f5c5..f5feb43 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
+++
On 03/22/2013 10:33 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 03/22/2013 02:10 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
index 159f5c5..f5feb43 100644
---
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 03/02/2013 02:05 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:01:22 -0600, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013
On 03/02/2013 02:05 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:01:22 -0600, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Are you requesting the gpio
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:01:22 -0600, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Are you requesting the gpio anywhere? If not then this is not going to
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 09:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
Something like that would definitely solve the GPIO request issue but
we still have the issue that the current OMAP GPIO controller binding
does not support
+ Jon who was brave enough to take over the OMAP GPIO driver
+ New email address for Kevin since he is no longer at TI :-(.
- Tarun that left TI but I don't have his new email
Hi Linus,
On 02/28/2013 12:41 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Benoit Cousson
On 02/28/2013 06:17 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 09:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
Something like that would definitely solve the GPIO request issue but
we still have the issue that
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Benoit Cousson b-cous...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/28/2013 12:41 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Benoit Cousson b-cous...@ti.com wrote:
Gosh! That's pretty old stuff :-)
Hm yeah, haha :-)
I didn't notice that someone was replying in the
On 02/28/2013 06:09 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Benoit Cousson b-cous...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/28/2013 12:41 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Benoit Cousson b-cous...@ti.com wrote:
Gosh! That's pretty old stuff :-)
Hm yeah, haha :-)
On 02/26/2013 08:33 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
Yes, I realized that requesting the gpio was necessary so what I did
is to use the regulator-fixed optional property gpio and define
the GPIO used as an IRQ in a regulator used by the SMSC chip. So, I
have this on my board DT:
On 02/26/2013 08:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 06:13 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:45 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
...
One issue I see is that by not calling gpio_request, then potentially
you
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 02/26/2013 08:33 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
Yes, I realized that requesting the gpio was necessary so what I did
is to use the regulator-fixed optional property gpio and define
the GPIO used as an IRQ
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 02/26/2013 08:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 06:13 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:45 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 09:47 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT support for
On 02/26/2013 09:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
Something like that would definitely solve the GPIO request issue but
we still have the issue that the current OMAP GPIO controller binding
does not support #interrupt-cells = 2.
So, we can't pass the trigger type and level
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Benoit Cousson b-cous...@ti.com wrote:
@@ -52,7 +55,8 @@ struct gpio_bank {
struct list_head node;
void __iomem *base;
u16 irq;
- u16 virtual_irq_start;
+ int irq_base;
+ struct irq_domain *domain;
This seems
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Cousson, Benoit b-cous...@ti.com wrote:
On 2/22/2012 7:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
Rob Herring wrote at Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:23 AM:
On 02/22/2012 08:31 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:23 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 02/15/2012 10:04 AM,
On 02/26/2013 03:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
...
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
...
Reading the gpio-omap.txt documentation it says that #interrupt-cells
should be 2 and that a value of 8 is active low level-sensitive.
So I tried this:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT support for an SMSC911x ethernet chip connected to the
GPMC for an OMAP3 SoC based board.
In the smsc911x driver probe function
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT support for an SMSC911x ethernet chip connected to the
GPMC for an OMAP3 SoC based board.
In
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT support for an SMSC911x ethernet chip connected to
On 02/26/2013 04:01 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT support for an SMSC911x ethernet chip connected to the
GPMC for an OMAP3 SoC based board.
In the smsc911x driver probe function
On 02/26/2013 05:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for
On 02/26/2013 04:45 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 05:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I
On 02/26/2013 06:13 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:45 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 05:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT support for an SMSC911x ethernet chip connected to the
GPMC for an
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
[snip]
I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
I'm adding DT support for an SMSC911x ethernet chip connected to the
GPMC for an
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 06:13 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:45 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 05:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:01 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/15/2012 10:04 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Adapt the GPIO driver to retrieve information from a DT file.
Allocate the irq_base dynamically and rename bank-virtual_irq_start
to bank-irq_base.
Change irq_base type to int instead of u16 to match irq_alloc_descs
output.
Add documentation
On 2/22/2012 3:23 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 02/15/2012 10:04 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Adapt the GPIO driver to retrieve information from a DT file.
Allocate the irq_base dynamically and rename bank-virtual_irq_start
to bank-irq_base.
Change irq_base type to int instead of u16 to match
Rob Herring wrote at Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:23 AM:
On 02/22/2012 08:31 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 2/22/2012 3:23 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 02/15/2012 10:04 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Adapt the GPIO driver to retrieve information from a DT file.
Allocate the irq_base
Adapt the GPIO driver to retrieve information from a DT file.
Allocate the irq_base dynamically and rename bank-virtual_irq_start
to bank-irq_base.
Change irq_base type to int instead of u16 to match irq_alloc_descs
output.
Add documentation for GPIO properties specific to OMAP.
Signed-off-by:
78 matches
Mail list logo
