From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:06:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 09/14] pinctrl/abx500: use direct IRQ defines In-Reply-To: <20130208082536.GF7519@gmail.com> References: <1360093715-6348-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <1360093715-6348-10-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <5112F1B9.6010700@wwwdotorg.org> <5113EB8B.4060002@wwwdotorg.org> <20130208082536.GF7519@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5115308C.5010400@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/08/2013 01:25 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 02/07/2013 02:01 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> I don't see myself on cc. Was that intentional? >> >> The original patch was that way; I assume git send-email only CC'd you >> on patches written by you. > > No, I didn't send this patch at all. > > I was asking Linus if he ment to CC me, as I thought I should have been. > >>> I quite like the idea of this. >>> >>> Stephen, >>> >>> It doesn't mean the other patch was wrong, it just transfers the math. >> >> Ah, I see. The issue is that the code below clearly calculates the hwirq >> differently, and it wasn't immediately obvious that this part of the >> patch for example: >> >>> struct abx500_gpio_irq_cluster ab8500_gpio_irq_cluster[] = { >>> - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, 34), >>> - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, 24), >>> - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, 14), >>> + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, AB8500_INT_GPIO6R), >>> + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, AB8500_INT_GPIO24R), >>> + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, AB8500_INT_GPIO36R), >>> }; >> >> ... actually changes the values in the table (AB8500_INT_GPIO6R is 40, >> so when using that value, you need to subtract of the value 6 for the >> base to get the original 34). > > Yes, I see how that may of looked if you didn't see the other change. > > So you're happy? Yes. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760194Ab3BHRGZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 12:06:25 -0500 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:46674 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758581Ab3BHRGY (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2013 12:06:24 -0500 Message-ID: <5115308C.5010400@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:06:20 -0700 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Jones CC: Anmar Oueja , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , Linus Walleij , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/14] pinctrl/abx500: use direct IRQ defines References: <1360093715-6348-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <1360093715-6348-10-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <5112F1B9.6010700@wwwdotorg.org> <5113EB8B.4060002@wwwdotorg.org> <20130208082536.GF7519@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130208082536.GF7519@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/08/2013 01:25 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 02/07/2013 02:01 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> I don't see myself on cc. Was that intentional? >> >> The original patch was that way; I assume git send-email only CC'd you >> on patches written by you. > > No, I didn't send this patch at all. > > I was asking Linus if he ment to CC me, as I thought I should have been. > >>> I quite like the idea of this. >>> >>> Stephen, >>> >>> It doesn't mean the other patch was wrong, it just transfers the math. >> >> Ah, I see. The issue is that the code below clearly calculates the hwirq >> differently, and it wasn't immediately obvious that this part of the >> patch for example: >> >>> struct abx500_gpio_irq_cluster ab8500_gpio_irq_cluster[] = { >>> - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, 34), >>> - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, 24), >>> - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, 14), >>> + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, AB8500_INT_GPIO6R), >>> + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, AB8500_INT_GPIO24R), >>> + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, AB8500_INT_GPIO36R), >>> }; >> >> ... actually changes the values in the table (AB8500_INT_GPIO6R is 40, >> so when using that value, you need to subtract of the value 6 for the >> base to get the original 34). > > Yes, I see how that may of looked if you didn't see the other change. > > So you're happy? Yes.