From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752483Ab3AUIhj (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:37:39 -0500 Received: from va3ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.14]:4659 "EHLO va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752002Ab3AUIhi (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:37:38 -0500 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:59.163.77.45;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:KCHJEXHC01.kpit.com;RD:59.163.77.45.static.vsnl.net.in;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -1 X-BigFish: VPS-1(zz542I1432Izz1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzzz2dh2a8h668h839h93fhd24hd2bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h1898hbe9i1155h) Subject: Re: [patch v1 2/5] regulator: da9055 change irq state to default From: Ashish Jangam To: Mark Brown CC: Liam Girdwood , Samuel Ortiz , , David Dajun Chen In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:05:12 +0530 Message-ID: <1358757312.11746.11.camel@dhruva> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.10.38.47] X-OriginatorOrg: kpitcummins.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > > > > This patch changes the irq state from high to the now default low > > > > state. > > > > > This patch is dependent on the DA9055 MFD. > > > > Why is this change required and why is there a dependency here? > > > It has been decided to have nIRQ therefore the main mfd IRQ state needs > > Won't this break all existing systems? Since all of the existing users are using nIRQ therefore it was decided to have the default state as nIRQ. > > > to be changed. And since mfd children follows mfd irq state therefore > > the dependency; though in case of mfd this may not affect. > > What makes you say that there is a dependency here? It's really not at > all obvious why a change to the primary IRQ signalling mechanism would > affect the internal interrupts of the device. Yes, functionally this dependency should not matter.However, if mfd/primary irq state is low and its components are high then it shall not look good. Therefore the term dependency was used, probably I should have written it in a different manner.