From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Ujfalusi Subject: Re: [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:55:14 +0100 Message-ID: <50F7CA82.4050509@ti.com> References: <1358372702-13102-1-git-send-email-coelho@ti.com> <50F7C4A7.5060202@ti.com> <20130117093417.GH10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:43720 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759344Ab3AQJz1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:55:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130117093417.GH10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: balbi@ti.com Cc: Luciano Coelho , tony@atomide.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 01/17/2013 10:34 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> I just wonder how this is going to work with DT... You are not going= to have >> the ability to use callback in this form. >> I think the GPIO handling should be done in the driver itself rather= than in >> the board file. >=20 > that can (should ?) be moved to ti-st eventually. In fact I don't kno= w > why it was removed in the first place, we would need Pavan to help us > with that query. Yes, this is a good question. I don't know what is the spacial thing pl= atforms need to do in the callback.. > Still, for -rc, the minimal patch had to be cooked, right ? Sure it need to be fixed. I would try to revert the patch which caused = the issue (eccf2979 drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling). Should fix the legacy boot, but it is going to be even bigger fun to mo= ve to DT (and get rid of the callbacks). I don't have anything against this patch as such. Just wanted to point = out the obvious that the comfort of callbacks are not going to be around in som= e cases. --=20 P=E9ter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peter.ujfalusi@ti.com (Peter Ujfalusi) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:55:14 +0100 Subject: [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions In-Reply-To: <20130117093417.GH10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi> References: <1358372702-13102-1-git-send-email-coelho@ti.com> <50F7C4A7.5060202@ti.com> <20130117093417.GH10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Message-ID: <50F7CA82.4050509@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/17/2013 10:34 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> I just wonder how this is going to work with DT... You are not going to have >> the ability to use callback in this form. >> I think the GPIO handling should be done in the driver itself rather than in >> the board file. > > that can (should ?) be moved to ti-st eventually. In fact I don't know > why it was removed in the first place, we would need Pavan to help us > with that query. Yes, this is a good question. I don't know what is the spacial thing platforms need to do in the callback.. > Still, for -rc, the minimal patch had to be cooked, right ? Sure it need to be fixed. I would try to revert the patch which caused the issue (eccf2979 drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling). Should fix the legacy boot, but it is going to be even bigger fun to move to DT (and get rid of the callbacks). I don't have anything against this patch as such. Just wanted to point out the obvious that the comfort of callbacks are not going to be around in some cases. -- P?ter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759459Ab3AQJza (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:55:30 -0500 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:43720 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759344Ab3AQJz1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:55:27 -0500 Message-ID: <50F7CA82.4050509@ti.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:55:14 +0100 From: Peter Ujfalusi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130115 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: Luciano Coelho , , , , , Subject: Re: [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions References: <1358372702-13102-1-git-send-email-coelho@ti.com> <50F7C4A7.5060202@ti.com> <20130117093417.GH10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi> In-Reply-To: <20130117093417.GH10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/17/2013 10:34 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> I just wonder how this is going to work with DT... You are not going to have >> the ability to use callback in this form. >> I think the GPIO handling should be done in the driver itself rather than in >> the board file. > > that can (should ?) be moved to ti-st eventually. In fact I don't know > why it was removed in the first place, we would need Pavan to help us > with that query. Yes, this is a good question. I don't know what is the spacial thing platforms need to do in the callback.. > Still, for -rc, the minimal patch had to be cooked, right ? Sure it need to be fixed. I would try to revert the patch which caused the issue (eccf2979 drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling). Should fix the legacy boot, but it is going to be even bigger fun to move to DT (and get rid of the callbacks). I don't have anything against this patch as such. Just wanted to point out the obvious that the comfort of callbacks are not going to be around in some cases. -- Péter