On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 03:57:47PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 03:21:27PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 03:06:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:41:27PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 0
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 03:21:27PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 03:06:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:41:27PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:33:34PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > Ok, that allays my fear w
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 03:06:06PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:41:27PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:33:34PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Ok, that allays my fear w.r.t. ordering of the resources.
> > >
> > > As I see it, the fact that
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:41:27PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:33:34PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Ok, that allays my fear w.r.t. ordering of the resources.
> >
> > As I see it, the fact that we convert GpioInt entries to GPIOs rather
> > than irqs when parsing _C
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:33:34PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Ok, that allays my fear w.r.t. ordering of the resources.
>
> As I see it, the fact that we convert GpioInt entries to GPIOs rather
> than irqs when parsing _CRS is the issue here, and to me it makes no
> sense that we do so. Were we
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:30:41AM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:14:58AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:59:31AM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:39:25AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > If the above is not the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:14:58AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:59:31AM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:39:25AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > If the above is not the right way to use GPIOs as interrupt, can you
> > > > please tell me how
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:59:31AM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:39:25AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > If the above is not the right way to use GPIOs as interrupt, can you
> > > please tell me how it is done then?
> >
> >
> > So lets say we have a device which gene
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:39:25AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > If the above is not the right way to use GPIOs as interrupt, can you
> > please tell me how it is done then?
>
>
> So lets say we have a device which generates an interrupt:
>
> device@f00 {
> compatible = "som
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:16:10AM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:39:30PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > What I don't follow is why GpioInt seems to be translated as a GPIO
> > rather than as an interrupt which happens to be backed by a GPIO. Were
> > it not for that, th
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:39:30PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> What I don't follow is why GpioInt seems to be translated as a GPIO
> rather than as an interrupt which happens to be backed by a GPIO. Were
> it not for that, the DT and ACPI cases would align better.
Because it *is* a GPIO.
In my e
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:13:56PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:01:20PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 03:16:37PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:50:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 0
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 04:01:20PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 03:16:37PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:50:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:47:29PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 0
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 03:16:37PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:50:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:47:29PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:37:24PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 0
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:50:01PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:47:29PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:37:24PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:29:33PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > The HID over I2C specific
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:47:29PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:37:24PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:29:33PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > The HID over I2C specification allows to have the interrupt for a HID
> > > device to be GPIO i
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:37:24PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:29:33PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > The HID over I2C specification allows to have the interrupt for a HID
> > device to be GPIO instead of directly connected to the IO-APIC.
> >
> > Add support for thi
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 02:29:33PM +, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> The HID over I2C specification allows to have the interrupt for a HID
> device to be GPIO instead of directly connected to the IO-APIC.
>
> Add support for this so that when the driver does not find proper interrupt
> number from t
The HID over I2C specification allows to have the interrupt for a HID
device to be GPIO instead of directly connected to the IO-APIC.
Add support for this so that when the driver does not find proper interrupt
number from the I2C client structure we check if the device has property
named "gpios".
19 matches
Mail list logo
