Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:25:36 +0000 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |