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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1354126 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes

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] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-09 14:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-03-11 09:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-11 10:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-03-16 09:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com> - 2016-03-16 10:40 +0100

#1354126 — Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes

Hi Lee,

On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>> Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
>>> find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
>>> I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
>>> in and using it, it should be functional.
>>>
>> I think the following change also crash in runtime:
>>
>> /***
>> commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
>> Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>>
>>      mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
>>
>> ***/
>>
>> Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
>> MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
> I'll have a re-think about this.

Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my mfd 
series once this get fixed before that series applied.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1355705

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> >
> >>On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> >>>Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
> >>>find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
> >>>I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
> >>>in and using it, it should be functional.
> >>>
> >>I think the following change also crash in runtime:
> >>
> >>/***
> >>commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
> >>Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> >>
> >>     mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
> >>
> >>***/
> >>
> >>Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
> >>MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
> >I'll have a re-think about this.
> 
> Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
> mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.

Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now.  It's too late in the
release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

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

#1355754

On Friday 11 March 2016 02:09 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>>>> Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
>>>>> find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
>>>>> I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
>>>>> in and using it, it should be functional.
>>>>>
>>>> I think the following change also crash in runtime:
>>>>
>>>> /***
>>>> commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
>>>> Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>>      mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
>>>>
>>>> ***/
>>>>
>>>> Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
>>>> MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
>>> I'll have a re-think about this.
>> Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
>> mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.
> Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now.  It's too late in the
> release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
> the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.
>
OK, so can I use the local initializations in my max77620 patches and 
resend?
Then later we can have cleanups for part only?

This is because if we get in next release then there is some other sub 
modules of the max77620 like clocks, watchdog, power etc which can go on 
their subsystem if common header is available.

Sorry if I am asking too much..

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

#1358733

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

> 
> On Friday 11 March 2016 02:09 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> >>On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
> >>>>>Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
> >>>>>find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
> >>>>>I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
> >>>>>in and using it, it should be functional.
> >>>>>
> >>>>I think the following change also crash in runtime:
> >>>>
> >>>>/***
> >>>>commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
> >>>>Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>     mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
> >>>>
> >>>>***/
> >>>>
> >>>>Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
> >>>>MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
> >>>I'll have a re-think about this.
> >>Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
> >>mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.
> >Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now.  It's too late in the
> >release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
> >the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.
> >
> OK, so can I use the local initializations in my max77620 patches
> and resend?
> Then later we can have cleanups for part only?
> 
> This is because if we get in next release then there is some other
> sub modules of the max77620 like clocks, watchdog, power etc which
> can go on their subsystem if common header is available.
> 
> Sorry if I am asking too much..

For quick accptance, just submit using the normal un-MACRO'ed
structure.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

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

#1358768

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 02:12 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> On Friday 11 March 2016 02:09 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
>>>>>>> Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
>>>>>>> find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
>>>>>>> I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
>>>>>>> in and using it, it should be functional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the following change also crash in runtime:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /***
>>>>>> commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
>>>>>> Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
>>>>>> MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
>>>>> I'll have a re-think about this.
>>>> Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
>>>> mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.
>>> Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now.  It's too late in the
>>> release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
>>> the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.
>>>
>> OK, so can I use the local initializations in my max77620 patches
>> and resend?
>> Then later we can have cleanups for part only?
>>
>> This is because if we get in next release then there is some other
>> sub modules of the max77620 like clocks, watchdog, power etc which
>> can go on their subsystem if common header is available.
>>
>> Sorry if I am asking too much..
> For quick accptance, just submit using the normal un-MACRO'ed
> structure.

Thanks, I had sent V9 version of the MAX77620 which used normal 
un-MACROed version.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web