From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] OMAP2PLUS: GPIO: Fix non-wakeup GPIO and rev_ids Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:32:39 -0700 Message-ID: <8762oxcny0.fsf@ti.com> References: <1306247094-25372-1-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com> <1306247094-25372-3-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com> <87sjs2sbvy.fsf@ti.com> <8762oxgz8h.fsf@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog115.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.238]:57997 "EHLO na3sys009aog115.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757756Ab1EZScn convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2011 14:32:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pz0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 4so529023pzk.14 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Charulatha Varadarajan's message of "Thu, 26 May 2011 12:39:53 -0500") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Varadarajan, Charulatha" Cc: Tarun Kanti DebBarma , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, santosh.shilimkar@ti.com, tony@atomide.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Cousson, Benoit" , Paul Walmsley "Varadarajan, Charulatha" writes: > Kevin, > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:15, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> "Varadarajan, Charulatha" writes: >> >>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:04, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>> Tarun Kanti DebBarma writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Charulatha V >>>>> >>>>> Non-wakeup GPIOs are available only in OMAP2420 and OMAP3430. But >>>>> the GPIO driver initializes the non-wakeup GPIO bits for OMAP24xx >>>>> (bothe OMAP 2420 and 2430) & not for OMAP3 which is incorrect. >>>> >>>> Can you cite the documentation you're using for the OMAP3 non-wake= up >>>> GPIOs? >>> >>> I am referring to Table 25-5. GPIO Channel Description at page no 3= 354 >>> OMAP3430 public TRM Version P. >>> >> >> Based on how I understand that, those non-wakeup GPIOs are non-wakeu= p >> because they're not actually mapped anywhere, and not available on >> external pins. =C2=A0Therefore, they should not need any special cas= e >> handling for this triggering workaround. > > Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I will not do this for OMAP3. The speci= al case > would be only for OMAP2420 against the current code which is handling > for OMAP24xx. > Great, thanks. Kevin -- 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: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:32:39 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 02/15] OMAP2PLUS: GPIO: Fix non-wakeup GPIO and rev_ids In-Reply-To: (Charulatha Varadarajan's message of "Thu, 26 May 2011 12:39:53 -0500") References: <1306247094-25372-1-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com> <1306247094-25372-3-git-send-email-tarun.kanti@ti.com> <87sjs2sbvy.fsf@ti.com> <8762oxgz8h.fsf@ti.com> Message-ID: <8762oxcny0.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org "Varadarajan, Charulatha" writes: > Kevin, > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:15, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> "Varadarajan, Charulatha" writes: >> >>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 03:04, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>> Tarun Kanti DebBarma writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Charulatha V >>>>> >>>>> Non-wakeup GPIOs are available only in OMAP2420 and OMAP3430. But >>>>> the GPIO driver initializes the non-wakeup GPIO bits for OMAP24xx >>>>> (bothe OMAP 2420 and 2430) & not for OMAP3 which is incorrect. >>>> >>>> Can you cite the documentation you're using for the OMAP3 non-wakeup >>>> GPIOs? >>> >>> I am referring to Table 25-5. GPIO Channel Description at page no 3354 >>> OMAP3430 public TRM Version P. >>> >> >> Based on how I understand that, those non-wakeup GPIOs are non-wakeup >> because they're not actually mapped anywhere, and not available on >> external pins. ?Therefore, they should not need any special case >> handling for this triggering workaround. > > Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I will not do this for OMAP3. The special case > would be only for OMAP2420 against the current code which is handling > for OMAP24xx. > Great, thanks. Kevin