On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:38:02PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> How to proceed: I'd like to leave this series out for the 2.6.34
> cycle and I'll pick it into my OF tree before the 2.6.35 merge window,
> but I'll probably modify it to call the OF hooks directly and leave
> out the unnecessar
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:32:36 +0300
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
>> This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
>> GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
>> attached to the Ope
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:32:36 +0300
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
> GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
> attached to the OpenFirmware subsystem. Which means that now we can handle
> I2C a
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> You could reply to my answers earlier and I would change and
> repost the patches in a jiffy, since I am interested in these
> patches.
>
> But you're obviously not interested in this support since you
> didn't answer my replies. I'll explai
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 09:43:20AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:54:56PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> > And of course the part of the OF rework, which was first posted
> > for *review* on Feb 03, is a completely different story?
> >
> > 48 files changed, 317 insertions(
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:54:56PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> [...]
>> The last version of the patches were posted on Feb 8. -rc8 was
>> released on Feb 12. For changes to common code, that is a little late
>> for getting queued up for
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:54:56PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> The last version of the patches were posted on Feb 8. -rc8 was
> released on Feb 12. For changes to common code, that is a little late
> for getting queued up for the merge window. If it was a subsystem
> that I maintain, say
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:47:06PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> [...]
>> >> I'm not really very comfortable with the whole
>> >> approach being taken. And, while I acked the first patch in the
>> >> series, that patch isn't needed by anythi
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:47:06PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> >> I'm not really very comfortable with the whole
> >> approach being taken. And, while I acked the first patch in the
> >> series, that patch isn't needed by anything except patches 2, 3 & 4.
But you didn't answer my replies,
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:28:32 -0700
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Morton
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:16:20 +0300
>> > Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:13:11AM -0700, Gr
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:13:11AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
> > +static int __init of_gpio_notifier_init(void)
> > +{
> > + return blocking_notifier_chain_register(&gpio_notifier,
> > &of_gpio_nb);
> > +}
> > +arch_initcall(of_gpio_notifier_init);
>
> Another concern; if any gpio c
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:08:00AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Anton Vorontsov
> wrote:
> > This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
> > GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
> > attached to t
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
> GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
> attached to the OpenFirmware subsystem. Which means that now we can handle
> I2C and
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
> GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
> attached to the OpenFirmware subsystem. Which means that now we can handle
> I2C and
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:32:36 +0300
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
> GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
> attached to the OpenFirmware subsystem. Which means that now we can handle
> I2C a
This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
attached to the OpenFirmware subsystem. Which means that now we can handle
I2C and SPI GPIO chips almost* transparently.
* "Almost" because some c
This patch implements GPIOLIB notifier hooks, and thus makes device-enabled
GPIO chips (i.e. the ones that have gpio_chip->dev specified) automatically
attached to the OpenFirmware subsystem. Which means that now we can handle
I2C and SPI GPIO chips almost* transparently.
* "Almost" because some c
17 matches
Mail list logo
