Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-07 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 04:03:34PM -0700, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > The driver uses platform-specific mxc_set_irq_fiq() with the VIRQ cookie > passed to it, so it's pretty clear that the driver is absolutely sure > that the FIQ is routed via platform-specific IC, and that the cookie can > be used to

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-07 Thread Mark Brown
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 08:35:58AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > Nowadays the FIQ support is necessary only for AC97. The AC97 support in > the SSI unit is buggy: It does not allow you to select the slots you > want to receive. At least the wm9712 codec always sends (apart from the > stereo data) d

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-07 Thread Dave Martin
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 10:19:50AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Anton Vorontsov > wrote: > > The driver uses platform-specific mxc_set_irq_fiq() with the VIRQ cookie > > passed to it, so it's pretty clear that the driver is absolutely sure > > that the FIQ is routed

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 10:41:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:39:50PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Robert Schwebel > > > > That's not true; we still run MX25, MX27, MX35, MX28 on mainline in > > > active projects. > > > I think Shawn Guo

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Shawn Guo
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:39:50PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > * make sure there's no weird FIQ stuff floating around that has so far > relied on SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_FIQ doing select FIQ before I make it not Acked on changing SND_IMX_SOC to SND_SOC_IMX_PCM_FIQ in arch/arm/plat-mxc/Makefile. > compile

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Matt Sealey
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:39:50PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Robert Schwebel > >> > That's not true; we still run MX25, MX27, MX35, MX28 on mainline in >> > active projects. > >> I think Shawn Guo (FSL/Linaro) w

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Mark Brown
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:39:50PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Robert Schwebel > > That's not true; we still run MX25, MX27, MX35, MX28 on mainline in > > active projects. > I think Shawn Guo (FSL/Linaro) would also disagree, since he's just > posted a large amount

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Matt Sealey
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Robert Schwebel wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 08:37:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> As far as I can tell nobody's really running much up to date mainline >> on older i.MX processors, all the work is going on the new stuff and >> most of the board are on either v

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Robert Schwebel
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 08:37:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > As far as I can tell nobody's really running much up to date mainline > on older i.MX processors, all the work is going on the new stuff and > most of the board are on either vendor BSPs or older kernels. That's not true; we still run M

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Mark Brown
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:09:26PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > So that needs to stay, the issue here is why did nobody catch > ssi-fiq.S breaking in testing MX51 > Babbage and building a Thumb2 kernel, for example? Why did nobody > notice it was building when > configuring for MX3/5/6 boards (whic

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Matt Sealey
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 10:19:50AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > >> it's not compiled in unless absolutely necessary. However, there was a >> rumble that this code may disappear or be reworked in the future >> making this also quite redundant. Sin

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Mark Brown
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 10:19:50AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: > it's not compiled in unless absolutely necessary. However, there was a > rumble that this code may disappear or be reworked in the future > making this also quite redundant. Since it's not in the There's no point in the FIQ driver if

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-06 Thread Matt Sealey
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > The driver uses platform-specific mxc_set_irq_fiq() with the VIRQ cookie > passed to it, so it's pretty clear that the driver is absolutely sure > that the FIQ is routed via platform-specific IC, and that the cookie can > be used to mask/unm

[PATCH 4/9] ASoC: imx: Don't use {en,dis}able_fiq() calls

2012-08-05 Thread Anton Vorontsov
The driver uses platform-specific mxc_set_irq_fiq() with the VIRQ cookie passed to it, so it's pretty clear that the driver is absolutely sure that the FIQ is routed via platform-specific IC, and that the cookie can be used to mask/unmask FIQs. So, let's switch to the genirq routines, since we're a