From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Hesselbarth Subject: Re: dwapb: a bug fix a few cleanups, v2 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:39:00 +0100 Message-ID: <5331F774.909@gmail.com> References: <1395505004-22650-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <5331F49C.8080106@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f48.google.com ([74.125.83.48]:46906 "EHLO mail-ee0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751549AbaCYVjF (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:39:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5331F49C.8080106@gmail.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Jamie Iles Cc: Alan Tull , Alexandre Courbot , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Dinh Nguyen , Alan Tull On 03/25/2014 10:26 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > On 03/25/2014 09:45 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior >> wrote: >> >>> Since Alan said that he had drop two patches from earlier series to make >>> it work I decided to spent some extra time to check if this is really the >>> case. >>> I dropped "gpio: dwapb: do not create the irq mapping upfront." until the >>> discussion there is over. >>> >>> This series has been tested back ported and tested on a v3.13 kernel with >>> the dummy test [0] here. It was tested on the Arrow board and the dev kit. I >>> tested edge and level interrupts. On the Arrow board releasing the button >>> causes a lot of interrupts so I assume debouncing is no working well >>> there. On the dev kit I see only one interrupt. If I realse it really >>> slowly, then the extra interrupts are visible there as well but way less. >>> >>> [0] http://breakpoint.cc/gpio-dwapb-test.c >> >> Okay so can we have Jamie and Sebastian H. have a look at this >> series? > > I'd love to test it and have a closer look, but we are way behind on > gpio and especially gpio irqs on mach-berlin. > > I will look at the patches, but I guess if it doesn't break socfpga > or any other user of it, it is fine. Except a small comment about for loop in 6/7 the dwapb related patches look good to me. Sebastian