lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/14] pinctrl/abx500: use direct IRQ defines
    On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:

    > On 02/07/2013 02:01 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
    > > I don't see myself on cc. Was that intentional?
    >
    > The original patch was that way; I assume git send-email only CC'd you
    > on patches written by you.

    No, I didn't send this patch at all.

    I was asking Linus if he ment to CC me, as I thought I should have been.

    > > I quite like the idea of this.
    > >
    > > Stephen,
    > >
    > > It doesn't mean the other patch was wrong, it just transfers the math.
    >
    > Ah, I see. The issue is that the code below clearly calculates the hwirq
    > differently, and it wasn't immediately obvious that this part of the
    > patch for example:
    >
    > > struct abx500_gpio_irq_cluster ab8500_gpio_irq_cluster[] = {
    > > - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, 34),
    > > - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, 24),
    > > - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, 14),
    > > + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, AB8500_INT_GPIO6R),
    > > + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, AB8500_INT_GPIO24R),
    > > + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, AB8500_INT_GPIO36R),
    > > };
    >
    > ... actually changes the values in the table (AB8500_INT_GPIO6R is 40,
    > so when using that value, you need to subtract of the value 6 for the
    > base to get the original 34).

    Yes, I see how that may of looked if you didn't see the other change.

    So you're happy?

    > > I wouldn't squash it into mine. I like the transition and the
    > > possibility to revert it if there's been some mistake.
    > >
    > > (not to say there is one, but just in case.)
    > >
    > > Sent from my mobile Linux device.
    > >
    > > On Feb 7, 2013 12:14 AM, "Stephen Warren" <swarren@wwwdotorg.org
    > > <mailto:swarren@wwwdotorg.org>> wrote:
    > >
    > > On 02/05/2013 12:48 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
    > > > From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org
    > > <mailto:linus.walleij@linaro.org>>
    > > >
    > > > Make it harder to do mistakes by introducing the actual
    > > > defined ABx500 IRQ number into the IRQ cluster definitions.
    > > > Deduct cluster offset from the GPIO offset to make each
    > > > cluster coherent.
    > >
    > > Shouldn't this patch be squashed into the previous patch to avoid churn?
    > >
    > > > static struct abx500_pinctrl_soc_data ab9540_soc = {
    > >
    > > > @@ -273,8 +273,7 @@ static int abx500_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip
    > > *chip, unsigned offset)
    > >
    > > > - hwirq = gpio + cluster->to_irq;
    > > > -
    > > > + hwirq = gpio - cluster->start + cluster->to_irq;
    > > > return
    > > irq_create_mapping(pct->parent->domain, hwirq);
    > >
    > > In particular, this change implies that the previous patch was simply
    > > incorrect, although I haven't really thought about it in detail.
    > >
    >

    --
    Lee Jones
    Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
    Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
    Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-02-08 10:01    [W:3.166 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site