Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1190910 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ in client->irq

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ in client->irq Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2015-07-23 15:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ in client->irq Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com> - 2015-07-23 15:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ in client->irq Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2015-07-23 15:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ  in client->irq Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> - 2015-07-23 15:30 +0200

#1190910 — Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ in client->irq

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Octavian Purdila
<octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Octavian Purdila
> <octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
>> Since patch "i2c / ACPI: Use 0 to indicate that device does not have
>> interrupt assigned" [1], 0 is not a valid i2c client irq anymore, so
>> change all driver's checks accordingly.
>>
>> The same issue occurs when the device is instantiated via device tree
>> with no IRQ, or from the i2c sysfs interface, even before the patch
>> above.
>>
>> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/<1430908148-201129-3-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Does this look OK to you? If so, could you pleas ACK the patch so that
> Linus can pick it up in its for-next branch if/when needed?

Me or Torvalds?

This looks more like a Wolfram patch to me if it should not
go through IIO.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1190919

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Octavian Purdila
> <octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Octavian Purdila
>> <octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Since patch "i2c / ACPI: Use 0 to indicate that device does not have
>>> interrupt assigned" [1], 0 is not a valid i2c client irq anymore, so
>>> change all driver's checks accordingly.
>>>
>>> The same issue occurs when the device is instantiated via device tree
>>> with no IRQ, or from the i2c sysfs interface, even before the patch
>>> above.
>>>
>>> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/<1430908148-201129-3-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> Does this look OK to you? If so, could you pleas ACK the patch so that
>> Linus can pick it up in its for-next branch if/when needed?
>
> Me or Torvalds?
>
> This looks more like a Wolfram patch to me if it should not
> go through IIO.
>

Hi Linus,

This patch fixes one issue introduced by  "i2c / ACPI: Use 0 to
indicate that device does not have interrupt assigned" which I see it
is merged in the GPIO for-next branch. That is why I thought you will
pick it up, did I assume wrong?

Thanks,
Tavi
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1190924

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Octavian Purdila
<octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:

>> Me or Torvalds?
>>
>> This looks more like a Wolfram patch to me if it should not
>> go through IIO.
>>
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> This patch fixes one issue introduced by  "i2c / ACPI: Use 0 to
> indicate that device does not have interrupt assigned" which I see it
> is merged in the GPIO for-next branch. That is why I thought you will
> pick it up, did I assume wrong?

Aha yeah O already forgot that I merged that.

That patch is not in -next, it is already in Torvalds'
tree.

So fixes can be merged directly through the IIO tree
without any GPIO dependencies.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1190920 — Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ in client->irq

On 23/07/2015 at 15:11:47 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote :
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Octavian Purdila
> <octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Octavian Purdila
> > <octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
> >> Since patch "i2c / ACPI: Use 0 to indicate that device does not have
> >> interrupt assigned" [1], 0 is not a valid i2c client irq anymore, so
> >> change all driver's checks accordingly.
> >>
> >> The same issue occurs when the device is instantiated via device tree
> >> with no IRQ, or from the i2c sysfs interface, even before the patch
> >> above.
> >>
> >> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/<1430908148-201129-3-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > Does this look OK to you? If so, could you pleas ACK the patch so that
> > Linus can pick it up in its for-next branch if/when needed?
> 
> Me or Torvalds?
> 
> This looks more like a Wolfram patch to me if it should not
> go through IIO.
> 

The first cover letter had:

"Linus, since the commit above was already merged in the GPIO tree,
should these fixes be merged also via the GPIO tree (with ACKs from
the others subsystem maintainers)?"

I believe it was referring to you ;). I can take the rtc patch if you
don't plan to take it.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web