From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758982Ab2CMFjM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:39:12 -0400 Received: from mailout3.samsung.com ([203.254.224.33]:17099 "EHLO mailout3.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757951Ab2CMFjG (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:39:06 -0400 X-AuditID: cbfee61a-b7b78ae000001ceb-4d-4f5edd787400 Message-id: <4F5EDD78.4070701@samsung.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:39:04 +0900 From: Chanwoo Choi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, sameo@linux.intel.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, myungjoo.ham@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] input: add MAX8997-haptic driver References: <4F571629.8010203@samsung.com> <20120307082900.GA20493@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4F5DB45C.4050101@samsung.com> <20120313053035.GB9449@core.coreip.homeip.net> In-reply-to: <20120313053035.GB9449@core.coreip.homeip.net> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/13/2012 02:30 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:31:24PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> On 03/07/2012 05:29 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> Hi Chanwoo, >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 05:02:49PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>>> MAX8997 has several features in a single chip, >>>> This patchset supports unimplemented haptic driver of MAX8997. >>>> >>>> v2 >>>> - code clean and remove unnecessary code according to comment of Dmitry >>>> Torokhov >>> >>> Could you please tell me if the version of the patch I sent to you >>> worked or not? >> >> It isn't worked because it use the mutex lock in irq handler stack. >> so, I resend v3 patch of max8997-haptic driver after modifying it. > > Hmm, my patch did not add taking mutex in irq context, I presume you are > talking about max8997->iolock that is taken in max8997_write_reg... OK, > I see... > You're right. I'm sorry about my ambiguous reply for you. Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi