On Wednesday 02 July 2014 05:24 PM, Nick Dyer wrote:
On 02/07/14 11:49, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 July 2014 09:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On the Tegra systems I have, IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING is the correct (or at
least a valid) choice. That's probably because the Atmel IRQ signal is
On 02/07/14 18:25, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
In this case board code should take care of setting up the interrupt
properly and the driver should simply use 0 as flags in request_irq().
By the way, doesn't generic DT infrastructure already allow specifying
interrupt triggers and sets them up
On Tuesday 01 July 2014 09:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
Sekhar Nori wrote at Tuesday, July 01, 2014 3:52 AM:
Nick,
I have been using your for-next branch to base my development of
touchscreen support on TI's DRA7x EVM. With the recent updates,
it has worked out great and once I got the
On 02/07/14 11:49, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 July 2014 09:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On the Tegra systems I have, IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING is the correct (or at
least a valid) choice. That's probably because the Atmel IRQ signal is
routed to our GPIO controller, which is also an IRQ
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Nick Dyer nick.d...@itdev.co.uk wrote:
On 02/07/14 11:49, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 July 2014 09:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On the Tegra systems I have, IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING is the correct (or at
least a valid) choice. That's probably because the Atmel
Sekhar Nori wrote at Tuesday, July 01, 2014 3:52 AM:
Nick,
I have been using your for-next branch to base my development of
touchscreen support on TI's DRA7x EVM. With the recent updates,
it has worked out great and once I got the configuration right,
it was just a question of adding DT
