Hi Linus,
On 06/01/2015 04:09 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:54 PM, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
wrote:
.. Looks like it's time to drop this stuff :,,(
Ooops missed this part of the discussion. Indeed it will call accessors
on non-requested GPIO lines. Damned. Taking the
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:54 PM, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
wrote:
> .. Looks like it's time to drop this stuff :,,(
Ooops missed this part of the discussion. Indeed it will call accessors
on non-requested GPIO lines. Damned. Taking these patches out again.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscr
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 09:54:29PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
> On 05/24/2015 08:12 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:33:01PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
> > wrote:
> >> On 05/21/2015 05:25 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>> A problem with the current imple
On 05/24/2015 08:12 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:33:01PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
>> On 05/21/2015 05:25 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
I introduced the gpiochip_[un]lock_as_irq() calls so
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:33:01PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 05:25 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> I introduced the gpiochip_[un]lock_as_irq() calls so we
> >> could safeguard against this. Notably tha
On 05/21/2015 05:25 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:25:21PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
>>> wrote:
>>
GPIOs 192-223, platform/48051000.gpio,
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:12:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> What? If I wanted a stable interface I would use sysfs and document
> >> the ABI in Documentation/ABI/*.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:28:55PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:25:21PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
> > wrote:
>
> >> GPIOs 192-223, platform/48051000.gpio, gpio:
> >> gpio-203 (vtt_fixed ) ou
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:12:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> What? If I wanted a stable interface I would use sysfs and document
>> the ABI in Documentation/ABI/*.
>>
>> debugfs is not ABI.
>
> As I mentioned in my response to Grygorii,
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:12:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:17 PM, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
> wrote:
> > On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>
> >> GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
> >> gpio-171 ( ) in hi IRQ-209
> >
> >
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:37 PM, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
wrote:
> Any way, the question is till here - How would it better to do?
> gpio-171 ( ) in hi IRQ-209
> -- or --
> gpio-171 ((null) ) in hi IRQ-209
The latter I think. No strong opinion really.
Yours,
Linus W
Hi Linus,
On 05/19/2015 05:12 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:17 PM, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
> wrote:
>> On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>
>>>GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
>>>gpio-171 ( ) in hi IRQ-209
>>
>> In genera
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:25:21PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
>> GPIOs 192-223, platform/48051000.gpio, gpio:
>> gpio-203 (vtt_fixed ) out hi requested
>
> This is backwards. All gpios *should* be requested. *If* we
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:17 PM, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
wrote:
> On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
>> gpio-171 ( ) in hi IRQ-209
>
> In general agree, but i propose to do it as
> GPIOs 160-191, platform/
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:17:45PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
> On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > How about instead of
> >
> > GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d000.gpio, gpio:
> > gpio-171 ((null) ) in hi IRQ209
> >
> > you do something like:
> >
On 05/18/2015 06:08 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 04:06:08PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
>> On 05/18/2015 02:02 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:25:21PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
>>> wrote:
From: Grygorii Strashko
N
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 04:06:08PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
> Hi Johan,
> On 05/18/2015 02:02 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:25:21PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org
> > wrote:
> >> From: Grygorii Strashko
> >>
> >> Now GPIOs, wich are requested as IRQ
Hi Johan,
On 05/18/2015 02:02 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:25:21PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Grygorii Strashko
>>
>> Now GPIOs, wich are requested as IRQ only, will not be displayed
>> through GPIO debugfs. For example:
>> # cat /proc/interrupts
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:25:21PM +0300, grygorii.stras...@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Grygorii Strashko
>
> Now GPIOs, wich are requested as IRQ only, will not be displayed
> through GPIO debugfs. For example:
> # cat /proc/interrupts
> CPU0 CPU1
> ...
> 209: 0
From: Grygorii Strashko
Now GPIOs, wich are requested as IRQ only, will not be displayed
through GPIO debugfs. For example:
# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0 CPU1
...
209: 0 0 4805d000.gpio 11 Edge 0-0021
# cat /debug/gpio
...
GPIOs 160-191, platform/4805d0
20 matches
Mail list logo