On Friday 23 August 2013 03:06 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On 8/23/2013 7:08 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>
>>> The whole point we are moving to domain is not have any default
>>> mapping(connection done) at DT level. Rather DT only specifies
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On 8/23/2013 7:08 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> The whole point we are moving to domain is not have any default
>> mapping(connection done) at DT level. Rather DT only specifies the
>> peripherals and their cross-bar connection ID(i.e cross-
On 8/23/2013 7:08 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 23 August 2013 04:14 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Friday 23 August 2013 12:23 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>> On Friday 23 August 2013 12:06 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:41 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri
On Friday 23 August 2013 04:14 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Friday 23 August 2013 12:23 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
>> On Friday 23 August 2013 12:06 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Friday 23 August 2013 11:41 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:17 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>>
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:23 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
> On Friday 23 August 2013 12:06 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Friday 23 August 2013 11:41 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:17 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On Thursday 22 August 2013 05:03 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:06 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Friday 23 August 2013 11:41 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:17 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>> On Thursday 22 August 2013 05:03 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
maps crossbar number<-> to interrupt number and
c
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:41 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi,
> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:17 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> On Thursday 22 August 2013 05:03 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>> maps crossbar number<-> to interrupt number and
>>> calls request_irq(int_no, crossbar_handler,..)
>> So will this
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:41 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi,
> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:17 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> On Thursday 22 August 2013 05:03 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>> maps crossbar number<-> to interrupt number and
>>> calls request_irq(int_no, crossbar_handler,..)
>> So will this
Hi,
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:17 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Thursday 22 August 2013 05:03 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
>> maps crossbar number<-> to interrupt number and
>> calls request_irq(int_no, crossbar_handler,..)
> So will this mapping happen based on some data passed from DT or
> just ba
On Thursday 22 August 2013 05:03 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
> maps crossbar number<-> to interrupt number and
> calls request_irq(int_no, crossbar_handler,..)
So will this mapping happen based on some data passed from DT or
just based on whats available when the device does a request_irq()?
If its
On Thursday 22 August 2013 07:33 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> On Thursday 22 August 2013 02:40 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:51 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> (...)
Sorry I don't understand w
Hi Linus,
On Thursday 22 August 2013 02:40 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
> wrote:
>> On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:51 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> (...)
>>> Sorry I don't understand what thread that is... can you point me there?
>>> My previous state
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
> On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:51 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
(...)
>> Sorry I don't understand what thread that is... can you point me there?
>> My previous statement on this issue what this:
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=1374425416
On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:51 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
> wrote:
>> On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:01 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>
Initially irqchip was discussed, but we also hav
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
> On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:01 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>
>>> Initially irqchip was discussed, but we also have a DMA crossbar
>>> to map the dma-requests. Since both irq/dma
On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:01 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>
>> Initially irqchip was discussed, but we also have a DMA crossbar
>> to map the dma-requests. Since both irq/dma crossbars should be handled,
>> pinctrl was suggested as the app
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Initially irqchip was discussed, but we also have a DMA crossbar
> to map the dma-requests. Since both irq/dma crossbars should be handled,
> pinctrl was suggested as the appropriate place to handle this.
I think it is better to use irqch
* Santosh Shilimkar [130813 06:35]:
> On Tuesday 13 August 2013 04:10 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Santosh Shilimkar [130724 12:06]:
> >> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 02:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >>> On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishant
On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:56 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> On Tuesday 13 August 2013 01:40 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Santosh Shilimkar [130724 12:06]:
>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 02:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
> On Wednesday 24
On Tuesday 13 August 2013 04:10 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Santosh Shilimkar [130724 12:06]:
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 02:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 11:38 AM, Sa
Hi Tony,
On Tuesday 13 August 2013 01:40 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Santosh Shilimkar [130724 12:06]:
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 02:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 11
* Santosh Shilimkar [130724 12:06]:
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 02:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >>> On 07/24/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 12:0
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 02:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 07/24/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 12:08 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> That said, ma
On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote:
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 07/24/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 12:08 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
That said, maybe a intermediate pinctrl approach might be more pragmatic and
less the
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 12:08 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> That said, maybe a intermediate pinctrl approach might be more pragmatic
>>> and less theoretically flexible.
>>> an option
On 07/24/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 12:08 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
That said, maybe a intermediate pinctrl approach might be more pragmatic and
less theoretically flexible.
an option might be to "statically allocate" default number of interrupts to a
dom
On Wednesday 24 July 2013 12:08 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 11:23 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> To summaries it again, what I understood from Sricharan's proposal,
>>
>> - Setup all the routing at cross-bar probe so that kernel continue to
>> work like normal IRQ controller with cro
On 07/22/2013 11:23 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
To summaries it again, what I understood from Sricharan's proposal,
- Setup all the routing at cross-bar probe so that kernel continue to
work like normal IRQ controller with cross-bar scope vanishes once
the routing is done. Cross-bar does this b
On Monday 22 July 2013 08:20 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> On Sunday 21 July 2013 10:19 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>
>>> I carry forward my TI internal objection to this approach:
>> It is actually a very good sign of FOSS-maturity th
Hi Linus,
On Sunday 21 July 2013 10:19 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
>> I carry forward my TI internal objection to this approach:
> It is actually a very good sign of FOSS-maturity that you as a company
> take unresolved architectural issues t
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> I carry forward my TI internal objection to this approach:
It is actually a very good sign of FOSS-maturity that you as a company
take unresolved architectural issues to the community. Kudos!
> Lets see what happens as a result of this:
>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> The Peripheral irq/dma requests are connected to one crossbar's input
>> and the output of the crossbar is connected to controller's input
>> line. On POR, there are some mappings which are done by default.
>> Those peripherals which do not
Hi,
On Friday 19 July 2013 05:43 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
> wrote:
>> On Thursday 18 July 2013 02:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 07/18/2013 11:43 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
Some socs have a large number of interrupts/dma requests to serv
On Friday 19 July 2013 12:47 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> On Thursday 18 July 2013 02:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>
>> Since the cross-bar is not limited t0 IRQ lines and applicable for
>> DMA request lines as well, making it IRQ chip doesn't make sense. Its
>> not typical pin control functionalit
> On Thursday 18 July 2013 02:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
> Since the cross-bar is not limited t0 IRQ lines and applicable for
> DMA request lines as well, making it IRQ chip doesn't make sense. Its
> not typical pin control functionality either but at least that framework
> is much closer to c
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
> On Thursday 18 July 2013 02:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On 07/18/2013 11:43 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>>> Some socs have a large number of interrupts/dma requests to service
>>> the needs of its many peripherals and subsystems. All of th
On Thursday 18 July 2013 02:56 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 11:43 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
>> Some socs have a large number of interrupts/dma requests to service
>> the needs of its many peripherals and subsystems. All of the
>> requests lines from the subsystems are not needed at the sa
On 07/18/2013 11:43 AM, Sricharan R wrote:
Some socs have a large number of interrupts/dma requests to service
the needs of its many peripherals and subsystems. All of the
requests lines from the subsystems are not needed at the same
time, so they have to be muxed to the controllers appropriately
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:13:48PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> Some socs have a large number of interrupts/dma requests to service
> the needs of its many peripherals and subsystems. All of the
> requests lines from the subsystems are not needed at the same
> time, so they have to be muxed to
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 22:13 +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> Some socs have a large number of interrupts/dma requests to service
> the needs of its many peripherals and subsystems. All of the
> requests lines from the subsystems are not needed at the same
> time, so they have to be muxed to the controll
Some socs have a large number of interrupts/dma requests to service
the needs of its many peripherals and subsystems. All of the
requests lines from the subsystems are not needed at the same
time, so they have to be muxed to the controllers appropriately.
In such places a interrupt/dma controllers
41 matches
Mail list logo
