All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
To: <balbi@ti.com>
Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>, <tony@atomide.com>,
	<linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:35:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1358418917.6252.31.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130117100919.GJ10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi>

On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 12:09 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:05:10PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:55:14AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> > > On 01/17/2013 10:34 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > >> I just wonder how this is going to work with DT... You are not going to have
> > > >> the ability to use callback in this form.
> > > >> I think the GPIO handling should be done in the driver itself rather than in
> > > >> the board file.
> > > > 
> > > > that can (should ?) be moved to ti-st eventually. In fact I don't know
> > > > why it was removed in the first place, we would need Pavan to help us
> > > > with that query.
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is a good question. I don't know what is the spacial thing platforms
> > > need to do in the callback..
> 
> hah! looks like I found the reason:
> 
> http://git.omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-44xx-54xx-connectivity.c;h=e4852b93e91b6daa8f85cca91a1e7fbcc778f45b;hb=594aedd9e7da0491523411f8999efd98297f4fe4#l177
> 
> IMHO:
> 
> a) removing gpio handling wasn't necessary, we could just check
> 	if gpio_is_valid(nshutdown_gpio)
> 
> b) that whole omap_serial_ext_uart_enable() looks really hacky. I'm sure
> 	we can come up with something better.
> 

This out-of-tree code doesn't explain why we need to do the
enable/disable in the board file.  We just need to do things a bit
differently in the driver.  I'll start cleaning all this stuff up for
-next pretty soon.

For now, ie. 3.7 (stable) and 3.8, do we agree in taking this patch so
that TI-ST at least works on Panda? Simply reverting the gpio removal
patch doesn't help, because we also need to handle the UART2 muxing
(which my patch does as well).

--
Cheers,
Luca.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
To: balbi@ti.com
Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>,
	tony@atomide.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:35:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1358418917.6252.31.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130117100919.GJ10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi>

On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 12:09 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:05:10PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:55:14AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> > > On 01/17/2013 10:34 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > >> I just wonder how this is going to work with DT... You are not going to have
> > > >> the ability to use callback in this form.
> > > >> I think the GPIO handling should be done in the driver itself rather than in
> > > >> the board file.
> > > > 
> > > > that can (should ?) be moved to ti-st eventually. In fact I don't know
> > > > why it was removed in the first place, we would need Pavan to help us
> > > > with that query.
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is a good question. I don't know what is the spacial thing platforms
> > > need to do in the callback..
> 
> hah! looks like I found the reason:
> 
> http://git.omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-44xx-54xx-connectivity.c;h=e4852b93e91b6daa8f85cca91a1e7fbcc778f45b;hb=594aedd9e7da0491523411f8999efd98297f4fe4#l177
> 
> IMHO:
> 
> a) removing gpio handling wasn't necessary, we could just check
> 	if gpio_is_valid(nshutdown_gpio)
> 
> b) that whole omap_serial_ext_uart_enable() looks really hacky. I'm sure
> 	we can come up with something better.
> 

This out-of-tree code doesn't explain why we need to do the
enable/disable in the board file.  We just need to do things a bit
differently in the driver.  I'll start cleaning all this stuff up for
-next pretty soon.

For now, ie. 3.7 (stable) and 3.8, do we agree in taking this patch so
that TI-ST at least works on Panda? Simply reverting the gpio removal
patch doesn't help, because we also need to handle the UART2 muxing
(which my patch does as well).

--
Cheers,
Luca.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: coelho@ti.com (Luciano Coelho)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:35:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1358418917.6252.31.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130117100919.GJ10814@arwen.pp.htv.fi>

On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 12:09 +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:05:10PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:55:14AM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> > > On 01/17/2013 10:34 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > >> I just wonder how this is going to work with DT... You are not going to have
> > > >> the ability to use callback in this form.
> > > >> I think the GPIO handling should be done in the driver itself rather than in
> > > >> the board file.
> > > > 
> > > > that can (should ?) be moved to ti-st eventually. In fact I don't know
> > > > why it was removed in the first place, we would need Pavan to help us
> > > > with that query.
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is a good question. I don't know what is the spacial thing platforms
> > > need to do in the callback..
> 
> hah! looks like I found the reason:
> 
> http://git.omapzoom.org/?p=kernel/omap.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-44xx-54xx-connectivity.c;h=e4852b93e91b6daa8f85cca91a1e7fbcc778f45b;hb=594aedd9e7da0491523411f8999efd98297f4fe4#l177
> 
> IMHO:
> 
> a) removing gpio handling wasn't necessary, we could just check
> 	if gpio_is_valid(nshutdown_gpio)
> 
> b) that whole omap_serial_ext_uart_enable() looks really hacky. I'm sure
> 	we can come up with something better.
> 

This out-of-tree code doesn't explain why we need to do the
enable/disable in the board file.  We just need to do things a bit
differently in the driver.  I'll start cleaning all this stuff up for
-next pretty soon.

For now, ie. 3.7 (stable) and 3.8, do we agree in taking this patch so
that TI-ST at least works on Panda? Simply reverting the gpio removal
patch doesn't help, because we also need to handle the UART2 muxing
(which my patch does as well).

--
Cheers,
Luca.

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-17 10:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-16 21:45 [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions Luciano Coelho
2013-01-16 21:45 ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-16 21:45 ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17  9:30 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:30   ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:30   ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:34   ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17  9:34     ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17  9:34     ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17  9:55     ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:55       ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:55       ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17 10:05       ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17 10:05         ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17 10:05         ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17 10:09         ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17 10:09           ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17 10:09           ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-17 10:35           ` Luciano Coelho [this message]
2013-01-17 10:35             ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17 10:35             ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17 10:40             ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17 10:40               ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17 10:40               ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17 17:31               ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-17 17:31                 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-17 17:57                 ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17 17:57                   ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17 17:57                   ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17 23:16                   ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-17 23:16                     ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18  8:58                     ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-18  8:58                       ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-18  8:58                       ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-18 17:36                       ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18 17:36                         ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18 17:54                         ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-18 17:54                           ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-18 17:54                           ` Felipe Balbi
2013-01-18 18:05                           ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18 18:05                             ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18 19:08                         ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-18 19:08                           ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-18 19:08                           ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-18 19:22                           ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18 19:22                             ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18 10:11                     ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-18 10:11                       ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-18 10:11                       ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-18 17:49                       ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-18 17:49                         ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-23  8:55                         ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-23  8:55                           ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-23  8:55                           ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:35   ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17  9:35     ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17  9:35     ` Luciano Coelho
2013-01-17  9:59     ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:59       ` Peter Ujfalusi
2013-01-17  9:59       ` Peter Ujfalusi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1358418917.6252.31.camel@cumari.coelho.fi \
    --to=coelho@ti.com \
    --cc=balbi@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=peter.ujfalusi@ti.com \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.