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
18 matches
Mail list logo