> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:12:20AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The patch is fine given the changed behaviour of platform_get_irq. I
> > > wonder if it is sensible to introduce a variant of platform_get_irq
> > > (say
>
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:12:20AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> wrote:
>
> > The patch is fine given the changed behaviour of platform_get_irq. I
> > wonder if it is sensible to introduce a variant of platform_get_irq (say
> > platform_get_irq_
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Uwe Kleine-König
wrote:
> The patch is fine given the changed behaviour of platform_get_irq. I
> wonder if it is sensible to introduce a variant of platform_get_irq (say
> platform_get_irq_nowarn) that behaves like __platform_get_irq does
> today. Then the imx drive
Hi, Uwe
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 07:24:57AM +, Anson Huang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:58:24AM +, Anson Huang wrote:
> > > > > The patch is fine given the changed behaviour of
> > > > > platform_get_irq. I wonder if it is sensible to introduce a
> > > > > variant of platform_g
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 07:24:57AM +, Anson Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:58:24AM +, Anson Huang wrote:
> > > > The patch is fine given the changed behaviour of platform_get_irq. I
> > > > wonder if it is sensible to introduce a variant of platform_get_irq (say
> > > > platfor
Hi, Uwe
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:58:24AM +, Anson Huang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0800, Anson Huang wrote:
> > > > All i.MX SoCs except i.MX1 have ONLY 1 IRQ, so it is better to
> > > > check the IRQ count before getting second/third IRQ to avoid below
> > > > error
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:58:24AM +, Anson Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0800, Anson Huang wrote:
> > > All i.MX SoCs except i.MX1 have ONLY 1 IRQ, so it is better to check
> > > the IRQ count before getting second/third IRQ to avoid below error
> > > message dur
Hi, Uwe
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0800, Anson Huang wrote:
> > All i.MX SoCs except i.MX1 have ONLY 1 IRQ, so it is better to check
> > the IRQ count before getting second/third IRQ to avoid below error
> > message during probe:
> >
> > [0.726219] imx-uart 3086.serial: IRQ inde
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:18:31PM +0800, Anson Huang wrote:
> All i.MX SoCs except i.MX1 have ONLY 1 IRQ, so it is better to check
> the IRQ count before getting second/third IRQ to avoid below error
> message during probe:
>
> [0.726219] imx-uart 3086.serial: IRQ index 1 not foun
All i.MX SoCs except i.MX1 have ONLY 1 IRQ, so it is better to check
the IRQ count before getting second/third IRQ to avoid below error
message during probe:
[0.726219] imx-uart 3086.serial: IRQ index 1 not found
[0.731329] imx-uart 3086.serial: IRQ index 2 not found
Signed-off-by
10 matches
Mail list logo