On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Grygorii Strashko
wrote:
> On 06/29/2017 09:16 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Grygorii Strashko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And my opinion is still the same here - It should be perfectly valid to
>>> create
>>> mappings from gpio_to_irq() to h
On 06/29/2017 09:16 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Grygorii Strashko
> wrote:
>
>> And my opinion is still the same here - It should be perfectly valid to
>> create
>> mappings from gpio_to_irq() to handle properly orthogonality of gpiochip and
>> gpio-irqchip fun
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:14 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> So I changed my mind, it is fine for this type of driver to call
>> irq_create_mapping() in gpio_to_irq(). Preferably with some comment
>> around the call.
>
> What about disposing o
On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 17:53 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/06/17 15:57, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:14 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jerome Brunet
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > At the time Linus strongly rejected the idea of
> > > > call
On 29/06/17 15:57, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:14 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>
>>> At the time Linus strongly rejected the idea of calling irq_create_mapping
>>> (or
>>> any sleeping functions) in gpio_to_irq: please s
On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:14 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>
> > At the time Linus strongly rejected the idea of calling irq_create_mapping
> > (or
> > any sleeping functions) in gpio_to_irq: please see the reply from Oct 26,
> > 2016
> > (sor
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Grygorii Strashko
wrote:
> And my opinion is still the same here - It should be perfectly valid to create
> mappings from gpio_to_irq() to handle properly orthogonality of gpiochip and
> gpio-irqchip functionality and satisfy SPARSE_IRQ goal (allocate Linux virq
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> At the time Linus strongly rejected the idea of calling irq_create_mapping
> (or
> any sleeping functions) in gpio_to_irq: please see the reply from Oct 26, 2016
> (sorry for quoting such an old discussion but this is really the starting
On 06/27/2017 01:25 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 12:49 -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>
>> On 06/22/2017 09:25 AM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 22:50 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jerome Brunet
wrote:
> On Tue,
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 12:49 -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2017 09:25 AM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 22:50 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jerome Brunet
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 18:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote
On 06/22/2017 09:25 AM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 22:50 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 18:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
Eventually gpio_to_irq() should be DELETED and replaced in full with
>>
On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 22:50 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 18:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > Eventually gpio_to_irq() should be DELETED and replaced in full with
> > > the prepare/unprepare calls.
> >
> > Woahh,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 18:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Eventually gpio_to_irq() should be DELETED and replaced in full with
>> the prepare/unprepare calls.
>
> Woahh, that's not what I meant. gpio_to_irq should stay. Getting rid of it
>
On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 18:37 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>
> So I finally understood that what you want is to handle those cases
> where gpio_to_irq() is currently in use, and not expand the use of that
> function. And that is good.
Indeed
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
So I finally understood that what you want is to handle those cases
where gpio_to_irq() is currently in use, and not expand the use of that
function. And that is good.
> On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 10:39 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> > The fact
On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 10:39 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>
> > To handle this we tried:
> > - [0]: To create the mapping in the gpio_to_irq. Linus, you pointed out that
> > this is not allowed as gpio_to_irq is callable in irq context, theref
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> To handle this we tried:
> - [0]: To create the mapping in the gpio_to_irq. Linus, you pointed out that
> this is not allowed as gpio_to_irq is callable in irq context, therefore it
> should not sleep. Actually 3 drivers [2] are calling gpio
17 matches
Mail list logo
