From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] gpio/omap: force restore if context loss is not detectable Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:50:22 -0500 Message-ID: <5165C27E.1060704@ti.com> References: <1365106576-31816-1-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <1365106576-31816-5-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <5165C086.5010105@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:39862 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932945Ab3DJTuc (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:50:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Grant Likely , Santosh Shilimkar , Kevin Hilman , device-tree , linux-omap , linux-arm On 04/10/2013 02:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 04/10/2013 02:39 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>>> When booting with device-tree the function pointer for detecting context >>>> loss is not populated. Ideally, the pm_runtime framework should be >>>> enhanced to allow a means for reporting context/state loss and we could >>>> avoid populating such function pointers altogether. In the interim until >>>> a generic non-device specific solution is in place, force a restore of >>>> the gpio bank when enabling the gpio controller. >>>> >>>> Adds a new device-tree property for the OMAP GPIO controller to indicate >>>> if the GPIO controller is located in a power-domain that never loses >>>> power and hence will always maintain its logic state. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter >>> >>> In this case it'd be really helpful to get an ACK from somebody else. >>> I have no clue whether this thing is doing what it should, and if >>> you were the maintainer I'd apply it but now I'd like to hear from >>> Kevin or Santosh first... >> >> Santosh gave the his ACK for 1-4 (see 0/5) and Kevin added his >> reviewed-by for 1-4 (again see 0/5). > > OK all in patch 0 how confusing #-) > > All patches applied with Kevin's and Santosh's tags! Thanks. Sorry for the confusion! By the way, I am hoping you only took 1-4, per the cover-letter I was planning to have Benoit take 5 through his DT branch as there could be conflicts if you merge this with Benoit's branch. Again sorry if this is even more confusing ;-) Cheers Jon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jon-hunter@ti.com (Jon Hunter) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:50:22 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] gpio/omap: force restore if context loss is not detectable In-Reply-To: References: <1365106576-31816-1-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <1365106576-31816-5-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <5165C086.5010105@ti.com> Message-ID: <5165C27E.1060704@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/10/2013 02:44 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 04/10/2013 02:39 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>>> When booting with device-tree the function pointer for detecting context >>>> loss is not populated. Ideally, the pm_runtime framework should be >>>> enhanced to allow a means for reporting context/state loss and we could >>>> avoid populating such function pointers altogether. In the interim until >>>> a generic non-device specific solution is in place, force a restore of >>>> the gpio bank when enabling the gpio controller. >>>> >>>> Adds a new device-tree property for the OMAP GPIO controller to indicate >>>> if the GPIO controller is located in a power-domain that never loses >>>> power and hence will always maintain its logic state. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter >>> >>> In this case it'd be really helpful to get an ACK from somebody else. >>> I have no clue whether this thing is doing what it should, and if >>> you were the maintainer I'd apply it but now I'd like to hear from >>> Kevin or Santosh first... >> >> Santosh gave the his ACK for 1-4 (see 0/5) and Kevin added his >> reviewed-by for 1-4 (again see 0/5). > > OK all in patch 0 how confusing #-) > > All patches applied with Kevin's and Santosh's tags! Thanks. Sorry for the confusion! By the way, I am hoping you only took 1-4, per the cover-letter I was planning to have Benoit take 5 through his DT branch as there could be conflicts if you merge this with Benoit's branch. Again sorry if this is even more confusing ;-) Cheers Jon