On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:07:00PM +0530, ashishj3 wrote:
> +int da9052_set_bits(struct da9052 *da9052, unsigned char reg,
> + unsigned char bit_mask)
> +{
> + unsigned char val;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (reg > DA9052_MAX_REG_CNT) {
> + dev_err(da9052->dev,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:50:30AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Yes, that makes sense. There are also cases where a mutex should really
> be a spinlock (which is by definition not interruptible), or vice
> versa. I don't know if this is one of them.
We would be using spinlocks except the underly
On Friday 22 July 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> We went round this analysis already with the underlying I2C drivers
> (which also end up needing to take mutexes and so on) - it really does
> work out better to just make the I/O noninterruptible, the I/O is fast
> enough to not really be worth interrupt
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:40:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 21 July 2011 16:47:48 Mark Brown wrote:
> > Although the bigger problem is why are these interruptible? That's
> > very unusual.
> Well, the default should really be to use _interruptible or at least
> _killable with th
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:46:32PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:07:00PM +0530, ashishj3 wrote:
> > + mutex_lock_interruptible(&da9052->io_lock);
> Compile warning as below.
> "warning: ignoring return value of ‘mutex_lock_interruptible’,
> declared with attribute warn_u
On Thursday 21 July 2011 16:47:48 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:46:32PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:07:00PM +0530, ashishj3 wrote:
>
> > > + mutex_lock_interruptible(&da9052->io_lock);
>
> > Compile warning as below.
>
> > "warning: ignoring return v
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:07:00PM +0530, ashishj3 wrote:
> The DA9052 is a highly integrated PMIC subsystem with supply domain
> flexibility
> to support wide range of high performance application.
>
> It provides voltage regulators, GPIO controller, Touch Screen, RTC, Battery
> control and othe
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:07:00PM +0530, ashishj3 wrote:
> The DA9052 is a highly integrated PMIC subsystem with supply domain
> flexibility
> to support wide range of high performance application.
>
> It provides voltage regulators, GPIO controller, Touch Screen, RTC, Battery
> control and othe
c: Mark Brown; sa...@openedhand.com; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Dajun;
> > > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] MFD: DA9052 MFD core module v2
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 05 July 2011, ashishj3 wrote:
> > > > The DA9052 is a highly inte
nel.org; Dajun;
> > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] MFD: DA9052 MFD core module v2
> >
> > On Tuesday 05 July 2011, ashishj3 wrote:
> > > The DA9052 is a highly integrated PMIC subsystem with supply domain
> > flexibility
> > >
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:27:46PM +0530, Ashish Jangam wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:25 PM
> Can anyone ack this patch?
You've only left it about a week for a response. You cannot demand any
particular res
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:25 PM
> To: Ashish Jangam
> Cc: Mark Brown; sa...@openedhand.com; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Dajun;
> linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] MFD: D
On Tuesday 05 July 2011, ashishj3 wrote:
> The DA9052 is a highly integrated PMIC subsystem with supply domain
> flexibility
> to support wide range of high performance application.
>
> It provides voltage regulators, GPIO controller, Touch Screen, RTC, Battery
> control and other functionality.
13 matches
Mail list logo
