Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1316642
| From | Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional |
| Date | 2016-01-25 13:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qUOB4-3Tm-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <qTlrs-4u1-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTlKO-4CC-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTqht-7Nb-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTCLE-80H-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qTML1-6v3-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | Ka-Ro electronics GmbH |
Hi, On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:26:10 +0000 Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 06:41:45AM +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33:11PM +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > > > > Your commit message (quoted above) claims that without this patch if no > > > interrupt is supplied then the unsupplied interrupt will somehow be left > > > screaming and make the system unusable. This doesn't make sense, if > > > there is no interrupt there is nothing to scream. > > > "Otherwise" meant the case where the IRQ is specified in DT as is > > currently required to get the driver loaded at all. > > > > So, contrary to what you've been saying, the interrupt is actually > > > connected (and worse, connected to a NMI) but apparently not described > > > in DT. Why is it sensible to make the driver poll (which will affect > > > all systems using this device, even those that don't care) and not just > > > describe the interrupt in DT so it can be handled promptly in the normal > > > fashion? Presumably this will run into serious problems if the > > > interrupt actually fires at runtime since the NMI will scream, it's not > > > clear to me how the poll will manage to run successfully in that case. > > > Currently the driver won't even load without an IRQ specified in DT. > > My patch makes it possible to use the driver without requiring an IRQ! > > You're not just making the interrupt optional, you are also implementing > polling support. That's really unusual and there's no clear reason for > it, your changelog seems to claim that it is needed to make the system > work but that seems at best very surprising and would need a more > detailed changelog. > > You at least need to provide an understandable changelog, though it > seems it is more likely that there is a more sensible way of dealing > with this. > Any suggestions how to handle this case in a more sensible way? Lothar Waßmann
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
PATCH [0/2] ARM: dts: am33xx: add support for Ka-Ro electronics TX48-7020 module Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-20 13:40 +0100
[PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-20 13:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-20 17:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-21 08:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-21 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-21 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-21 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-21 12:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-21 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-22 06:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-22 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-25 13:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-25 13:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> - 2016-01-25 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-01-25 15:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2016-01-20 18:40 +0100
csiph-web