On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:55:11PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> > Samuel assumed it was ok and, like I said above, it worked for my simple
>> > GPIO
>> > usecase with beagleboard.
>>
>> Well, for 3.2 I think the situation is fine, but t
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> The short version is this: either we revert this patch[1], or we apply
>>> this patch series[2], as well as its
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:55:11PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Samuel assumed it was ok and, like I said above, it worked for my simple
> > GPIO
> > usecase with beagleboard.
>
> Well, for 3.2 I think the situation is fine, but that's not what I'm
> talking about. About your GPIO test
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:04:35PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> The short version is this: either we revert this patch[1], or we apply
> >> this patch series[2], as well a
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> The short version is this: either we revert this patch[1], or we apply
>> this patch series[2], as well as its essential fixes[3].
>>
>> The long version is this. There's a synchr
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> The short version is this: either we revert this patch[1], or we apply
>> this patch series[2], as well as its essential fixes[3].
>>
>> The long version is this. There's a s
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The short version is this: either we revert this patch[1], or we apply
> this patch series[2], as well as its essential fixes[3].
>
> The long version is this. There's a synchronization issue with the
> current keypad dri
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> The short version is this: either we revert this patch[1], or we apply
> this patch series[2], as well as its essential fixes[3].
>
> The long version is this. There's a synchronization issue with the
> current keypad driver
Hi,
The short version is this: either we revert this patch[1], or we apply
this patch series[2], as well as its essential fixes[3].
The long version is this. There's a synchronization issue with the
current keypad driver and twl core; the irq is marked as handled even
though the thread that is su
