All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <87pq8e6p4e.fsf@ti.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 27b399f..f83e368 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -13,36 +13,36 @@
 >>> >> >
 >>> >> >> Hi Grant,
 >>> >> >>
->>> >> >> Here's the final round of GPIO cleanups for v3.5.  This branch is based
+>>> >> >> Here's the final round of GPIO cleanups for v3.5. ?This branch is based
 >>> >> >> on my for_3.5/fixes/gpio branch you just pulled.
 >>> >> >>
 >>> >> >> Kevin
 >>> >> >
 >>> >> > Hi.
 >>> >> >
->>> >> >  I'm not sure if it was this series or the following cleanups which broke
->>> >> >  things for me, but I've been trying 3.5-rc2 on my GTA04 and the serial
->>> >> >  console (ttyO2) dies as soon as the omap-gpio driver initialises.
+>>> >> > ?I'm not sure if it was this series or the following cleanups which broke
+>>> >> > ?things for me, but I've been trying 3.5-rc2 on my GTA04 and the serial
+>>> >> > ?console (ttyO2) dies as soon as the omap-gpio driver initialises.
 >>> >> >
->>> >> >  After some digging I came up with this patch to gpio-omap.c
+>>> >> > ?After some digging I came up with this patch to gpio-omap.c
 >>> >> >
 >>> >> > @@ -1124,6 +1124,9 @@ static int __devinit omap_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 >>> >> >
->>> >> >        platform_set_drvdata(pdev, bank);
+>>> >> > ? ? ? ?platform_set_drvdata(pdev, bank);
 >>> >> >
->>> >> > +       if (bank->get_context_loss_count)
->>> >> > +               bank->context_loss_count =
->>> >> > +                               bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);
->>> >> >        pm_runtime_enable(bank->dev);
->>> >> >        pm_runtime_irq_safe(bank->dev);
->>> >> >        pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->dev);
+>>> >> > + ? ? ? if (bank->get_context_loss_count)
+>>> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bank->context_loss_count =
+>>> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);
+>>> >> > ? ? ? ?pm_runtime_enable(bank->dev);
+>>> >> > ? ? ? ?pm_runtime_irq_safe(bank->dev);
+>>> >> > ? ? ? ?pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->dev);
 >>> >> >
 >>> >> > which fixes it.
 >>> >> >
->>> >> > What was happening  was that when omap_gpio_probe calls pm_runtime_get_sync,
+>>> >> > What was happening ?was that when omap_gpio_probe calls pm_runtime_get_sync,
 >>> >> > it calls
->>> >> >  _od_runtime_resume -> pm_generic_runtime_resume -> omap_gpio_runtime_resume
->>> >> >  -> omap_gpio_restore_context
+>>> >> > ?_od_runtime_resume -> pm_generic_runtime_resume -> omap_gpio_runtime_resume
+>>> >> > ?-> omap_gpio_restore_context
 >>> >> >
 >>> >> > and then the serial port stops.
 >>> >> > I reasoned that the context probably hadn't been set up yet, so restoring
@@ -60,46 +60,46 @@
 >>> >> omap_gpio_runtime_resume(...)
 >>> >> {
 >>> >> ...
->>> >>         if (bank->get_context_loss_count) {
->>> >>                 context_lost_cnt_after =
->>> >>                         bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);
->>> >>                 if (context_lost_cnt_after != bank->context_loss_count) {
->>> >>                         omap_gpio_restore_context(bank);
->>> >>                 } else {
->>> >>                         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, flags);
->>> >>                         return 0;
->>> >>                 }
->>> >>         }
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? if (bank->get_context_loss_count) {
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? context_lost_cnt_after =
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (context_lost_cnt_after != bank->context_loss_count) {
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? omap_gpio_restore_context(bank);
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } else {
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, flags);
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return 0;
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
+>>> >> ? ? ? ? }
 >>> >> ...
 >>> >> }
 >>> >
 >>> > Hi,
->>> >  I've looked more closely at this now.
+>>> > ?I've looked more closely at this now.
 >>> >
->>> > The problem is that the initial context loss count is *not* zero.  Not always.
+>>> > The problem is that the initial context loss count is *not* zero. ?Not always.
 >>> > The context loss count is the sum of
 >>> >
->>> >        count = pwrdm->state_counter[PWRDM_POWER_OFF];
->>> >        count += pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter;
+>>> > ? ? ? ?count = pwrdm->state_counter[PWRDM_POWER_OFF];
+>>> > ? ? ? ?count += pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter;
 >>> >
->>> >        for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)
->>> >                count += pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i];
+>>> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)
+>>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?count += pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i];
 >>> >
->>> > (from  pwrdm_get_context_loss_count()).
+>>> > (from ?pwrdm_get_context_loss_count()).
 >>> >
 >>> > These are initlialised in _pwrdm_register
 >>> >
->>> >        /* Initialize the powerdomain's state counter */
->>> >        for (i = 0; i < PWRDM_MAX_PWRSTS; i++)
->>> >                pwrdm->state_counter[i] = 0;
+>>> > ? ? ? ?/* Initialize the powerdomain's state counter */
+>>> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < PWRDM_MAX_PWRSTS; i++)
+>>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pwrdm->state_counter[i] = 0;
 >>> >
->>> >        pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter = 0;
->>> >        for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)
->>> >                pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i] = 0;
+>>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter = 0;
+>>> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)
+>>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i] = 0;
 >>> >
->>> >        pwrdm_wait_transition(pwrdm);
->>> >        pwrdm->state = pwrdm_read_pwrst(pwrdm);
->>> >        pwrdm->state_counter[pwrdm->state] = 1;
+>>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm_wait_transition(pwrdm);
+>>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm->state = pwrdm_read_pwrst(pwrdm);
+>>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm->state_counter[pwrdm->state] = 1;
 >>> >
 >>> >
 >>> > What I'm seeing is that for wkup_pwrdm and dpll{3,4,5}_pwrdm,
@@ -111,19 +111,19 @@
 >>> I just put a log in omap_gpio_probe() to see the value of context_loss_count.
 >>> GPIO Bank 0 (WKUP Domain) always shows the count as '1'.
 >>>
->>> [    0.169494] omap_gpio omap_gpio.0: context_loss_count=1
->>> [    0.170227] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 0 to 31 on device: gpio
->>> [    0.170471] OMAP GPIO hardware version 0.1
->>> [    0.170623] omap_gpio omap_gpio.1: context_loss_count=0
->>> [    0.170928] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 32 to 63 on device: gpio
->>> [    0.171295] omap_gpio omap_gpio.2: context_loss_count=0
->>> [    0.171600] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 64 to 95 on device: gpio
->>> [    0.171936] omap_gpio omap_gpio.3: context_loss_count=0
->>> [    0.172241] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 96 to 127 on device: gpio
->>> [    0.172576] omap_gpio omap_gpio.4: context_loss_count=0
->>> [    0.172882] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 128 to 159 on device: gpio
->>> [    0.173217] omap_gpio omap_gpio.5: context_loss_count=0
->>> [    0.173522] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 160 to 191 on device: gpio
+>>> [ ? ?0.169494] omap_gpio omap_gpio.0: context_loss_count=1
+>>> [ ? ?0.170227] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 0 to 31 on device: gpio
+>>> [ ? ?0.170471] OMAP GPIO hardware version 0.1
+>>> [ ? ?0.170623] omap_gpio omap_gpio.1: context_loss_count=0
+>>> [ ? ?0.170928] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 32 to 63 on device: gpio
+>>> [ ? ?0.171295] omap_gpio omap_gpio.2: context_loss_count=0
+>>> [ ? ?0.171600] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 64 to 95 on device: gpio
+>>> [ ? ?0.171936] omap_gpio omap_gpio.3: context_loss_count=0
+>>> [ ? ?0.172241] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 96 to 127 on device: gpio
+>>> [ ? ?0.172576] omap_gpio omap_gpio.4: context_loss_count=0
+>>> [ ? ?0.172882] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 128 to 159 on device: gpio
+>>> [ ? ?0.173217] omap_gpio omap_gpio.5: context_loss_count=0
+>>> [ ? ?0.173522] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 160 to 191 on device: gpio
 >>
 >> That's consistent with what I see, and confirm that initialising the
 >> context_lost_count to zero isn't always correct.
@@ -143,7 +143,3 @@ Neil, care to send a patch w/changelog?
 Thanks,
 
 Kevin
---
-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
-the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
-More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 325c164..8bd58cd 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -5,15 +5,10 @@
  "ref\0CAC83ZvLDObTh2MXABObyGCk5M9qdaJm5GqRUUozFrubH1HfNTg@mail.gmail.com\0"
  "ref\020120625161845.59d6330b@notabene.brown\0"
  "ref\0CAC83ZvJWz7tCL9VSQXiLNoYDrg6+=Mkx7xS9hQivKfA_L_4ANw@mail.gmail.com\0"
- "From\0Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>\0"
- "Subject\0Re: [GIT PULL] gpio/omap: cleanups for v3.5\0"
+ "From\0khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman)\0"
+ "Subject\0[GIT PULL] gpio/omap: cleanups for v3.5\0"
  "Date\0Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:37:21 -0700\0"
- "To\0DebBarma"
- " Tarun Kanti <tarun.kanti@ti.com>\0"
- "Cc\0NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>"
-  Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
-  linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>
- " linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>\0"
+ "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "\"DebBarma, Tarun Kanti\" <tarun.kanti@ti.com> writes:\n"
@@ -31,36 +26,36 @@
  ">>> >> >\n"
  ">>> >> >> Hi Grant,\n"
  ">>> >> >>\n"
- ">>> >> >> Here's the final round of GPIO cleanups for v3.5. \302\240This branch is based\n"
+ ">>> >> >> Here's the final round of GPIO cleanups for v3.5. ?This branch is based\n"
  ">>> >> >> on my for_3.5/fixes/gpio branch you just pulled.\n"
  ">>> >> >>\n"
  ">>> >> >> Kevin\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
  ">>> >> > Hi.\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240I'm not sure if it was this series or the following cleanups which broke\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240things for me, but I've been trying 3.5-rc2 on my GTA04 and the serial\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240console (ttyO2) dies as soon as the omap-gpio driver initialises.\n"
+ ">>> >> > ?I'm not sure if it was this series or the following cleanups which broke\n"
+ ">>> >> > ?things for me, but I've been trying 3.5-rc2 on my GTA04 and the serial\n"
+ ">>> >> > ?console (ttyO2) dies as soon as the omap-gpio driver initialises.\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240After some digging I came up with this patch to gpio-omap.c\n"
+ ">>> >> > ?After some digging I came up with this patch to gpio-omap.c\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
  ">>> >> > @@ -1124,6 +1124,9 @@ static int __devinit omap_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240platform_set_drvdata(pdev, bank);\n"
+ ">>> >> > ? ? ? ?platform_set_drvdata(pdev, bank);\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
- ">>> >> > + \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 if (bank->get_context_loss_count)\n"
- ">>> >> > + \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 bank->context_loss_count =\n"
- ">>> >> > + \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pm_runtime_enable(bank->dev);\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pm_runtime_irq_safe(bank->dev);\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->dev);\n"
+ ">>> >> > + ? ? ? if (bank->get_context_loss_count)\n"
+ ">>> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bank->context_loss_count =\n"
+ ">>> >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);\n"
+ ">>> >> > ? ? ? ?pm_runtime_enable(bank->dev);\n"
+ ">>> >> > ? ? ? ?pm_runtime_irq_safe(bank->dev);\n"
+ ">>> >> > ? ? ? ?pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->dev);\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
  ">>> >> > which fixes it.\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
- ">>> >> > What was happening \302\240was that when omap_gpio_probe calls pm_runtime_get_sync,\n"
+ ">>> >> > What was happening ?was that when omap_gpio_probe calls pm_runtime_get_sync,\n"
  ">>> >> > it calls\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240_od_runtime_resume -> pm_generic_runtime_resume -> omap_gpio_runtime_resume\n"
- ">>> >> > \302\240-> omap_gpio_restore_context\n"
+ ">>> >> > ?_od_runtime_resume -> pm_generic_runtime_resume -> omap_gpio_runtime_resume\n"
+ ">>> >> > ?-> omap_gpio_restore_context\n"
  ">>> >> >\n"
  ">>> >> > and then the serial port stops.\n"
  ">>> >> > I reasoned that the context probably hadn't been set up yet, so restoring\n"
@@ -78,46 +73,46 @@
  ">>> >> omap_gpio_runtime_resume(...)\n"
  ">>> >> {\n"
  ">>> >> ...\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 if (bank->get_context_loss_count) {\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 context_lost_cnt_after =\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 if (context_lost_cnt_after != bank->context_loss_count) {\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 omap_gpio_restore_context(bank);\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 } else {\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, flags);\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 return 0;\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 }\n"
- ">>> >> \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 }\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? if (bank->get_context_loss_count) {\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? context_lost_cnt_after =\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (context_lost_cnt_after != bank->context_loss_count) {\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? omap_gpio_restore_context(bank);\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } else {\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, flags);\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return 0;\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }\n"
+ ">>> >> ? ? ? ? }\n"
  ">>> >> ...\n"
  ">>> >> }\n"
  ">>> >\n"
  ">>> > Hi,\n"
- ">>> > \302\240I've looked more closely at this now.\n"
+ ">>> > ?I've looked more closely at this now.\n"
  ">>> >\n"
- ">>> > The problem is that the initial context loss count is *not* zero. \302\240Not always.\n"
+ ">>> > The problem is that the initial context loss count is *not* zero. ?Not always.\n"
  ">>> > The context loss count is the sum of\n"
  ">>> >\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240count = pwrdm->state_counter[PWRDM_POWER_OFF];\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240count += pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter;\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?count = pwrdm->state_counter[PWRDM_POWER_OFF];\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?count += pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter;\n"
  ">>> >\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240count += pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i];\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?count += pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i];\n"
  ">>> >\n"
- ">>> > (from \302\240pwrdm_get_context_loss_count()).\n"
+ ">>> > (from ?pwrdm_get_context_loss_count()).\n"
  ">>> >\n"
  ">>> > These are initlialised in _pwrdm_register\n"
  ">>> >\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240/* Initialize the powerdomain's state counter */\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240for (i = 0; i < PWRDM_MAX_PWRSTS; i++)\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pwrdm->state_counter[i] = 0;\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?/* Initialize the powerdomain's state counter */\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < PWRDM_MAX_PWRSTS; i++)\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pwrdm->state_counter[i] = 0;\n"
  ">>> >\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter = 0;\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i] = 0;\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm->ret_logic_off_counter = 0;\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i] = 0;\n"
  ">>> >\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pwrdm_wait_transition(pwrdm);\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pwrdm->state = pwrdm_read_pwrst(pwrdm);\n"
- ">>> > \302\240 \302\240 \302\240 \302\240pwrdm->state_counter[pwrdm->state] = 1;\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm_wait_transition(pwrdm);\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm->state = pwrdm_read_pwrst(pwrdm);\n"
+ ">>> > ? ? ? ?pwrdm->state_counter[pwrdm->state] = 1;\n"
  ">>> >\n"
  ">>> >\n"
  ">>> > What I'm seeing is that for wkup_pwrdm and dpll{3,4,5}_pwrdm,\n"
@@ -129,19 +124,19 @@
  ">>> I just put a log in omap_gpio_probe() to see the value of context_loss_count.\n"
  ">>> GPIO Bank 0 (WKUP Domain) always shows the count as '1'.\n"
  ">>>\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.169494] omap_gpio omap_gpio.0: context_loss_count=1\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.170227] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 0 to 31 on device: gpio\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.170471] OMAP GPIO hardware version 0.1\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.170623] omap_gpio omap_gpio.1: context_loss_count=0\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.170928] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 32 to 63 on device: gpio\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.171295] omap_gpio omap_gpio.2: context_loss_count=0\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.171600] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 64 to 95 on device: gpio\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.171936] omap_gpio omap_gpio.3: context_loss_count=0\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.172241] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 96 to 127 on device: gpio\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.172576] omap_gpio omap_gpio.4: context_loss_count=0\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.172882] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 128 to 159 on device: gpio\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.173217] omap_gpio omap_gpio.5: context_loss_count=0\n"
- ">>> [ \302\240 \302\2400.173522] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 160 to 191 on device: gpio\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.169494] omap_gpio omap_gpio.0: context_loss_count=1\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.170227] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 0 to 31 on device: gpio\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.170471] OMAP GPIO hardware version 0.1\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.170623] omap_gpio omap_gpio.1: context_loss_count=0\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.170928] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 32 to 63 on device: gpio\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.171295] omap_gpio omap_gpio.2: context_loss_count=0\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.171600] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 64 to 95 on device: gpio\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.171936] omap_gpio omap_gpio.3: context_loss_count=0\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.172241] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 96 to 127 on device: gpio\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.172576] omap_gpio omap_gpio.4: context_loss_count=0\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.172882] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 128 to 159 on device: gpio\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.173217] omap_gpio omap_gpio.5: context_loss_count=0\n"
+ ">>> [ ? ?0.173522] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 160 to 191 on device: gpio\n"
  ">>\n"
  ">> That's consistent with what I see, and confirm that initialising the\n"
  ">> context_lost_count to zero isn't always correct.\n"
@@ -160,10 +155,6 @@
  "\n"
  "Thanks,\n"
  "\n"
- "Kevin\n"
- "--\n"
- "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-omap\" in\n"
- "the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n"
- More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
+ Kevin
 
-e8c3198c4fca793dab16ca0719edd8c206e8e8acbaf949d43cfa528cee51144b
+4b1af552d81901d4ccea1d5255e1deec55bf615679270260fcc81d30ad6ed68a

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.