Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-07 Thread Vincent Guittot
On 7 February 2012 15:15, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 02/07/2012 10:57 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: >> >> On 02/07/2012 10:22 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> >>> On 02/07/2012 09:39 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: On 02/06/2012 03:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-07 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/07/2012 10:57 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: On 02/07/2012 10:22 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 02/07/2012 09:39 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: On 02/06/2012 03:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: Hi! Our comments: Thanks Rickard and Jonas for your

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-07 Thread Rickard Andersson
On 02/07/2012 10:22 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 02/07/2012 09:39 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: On 02/06/2012 03:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: Hi! Our comments: Thanks Rickard and Jonas for your comments. - function names don't match commit co

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-07 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/07/2012 09:39 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: On 02/06/2012 03:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: Hi! Our comments: Thanks Rickard and Jonas for your comments. - function names don't match commit comment disable/enable vs recouple/decouple. Deco

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-07 Thread Rickard Andersson
On 02/06/2012 03:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: Hi! Our comments: Thanks Rickard and Jonas for your comments. - function names don't match commit comment disable/enable vs recouple/decouple. Decouple is a better name than disable, because GIC is

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-06 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/06/2012 06:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: - there is no reason to place these functions inside the db8500-prcmu.c file. There is so much stuff in the PRCMU register base so we can not h

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-06 Thread Linus Walleij
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: >> - there is no reason to place these functions inside the db8500-prcmu.c >> file. There is so much stuff in the PRCMU register base so we can not >> have everything in one file. Why not have

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-06 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote: Hi! Our comments: Thanks Rickard and Jonas for your comments. - function names don't match commit comment disable/enable vs recouple/decouple. Decouple is a better name than disable, because GIC is not really disabled it is just disconnected.

Re: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-06 Thread Rickard Andersson
Hi! Our comments: - function names don't match commit comment disable/enable vs recouple/decouple. Decouple is a better name than disable, because GIC is not really disabled it is just disconnected. - there is no reason to place these functions inside the db8500-prcmu.c file. There is so much

[PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU

2012-02-03 Thread Daniel Lezcano
This patch allows to decouple and recouple the gic from the PRCMU. This is needed to put the A9 core in retention mode with the cpuidle driver. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano --- drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c | 42 ++ include/linux/mfd/db8500-prcmu.h |