From: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
To: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
Cc: <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 10:59:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50F7CB70.5010003@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1358415316.6252.20.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
Hi Luca,
On 01/17/2013 10:35 AM, Luciano Coelho 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.
>
> I agree. The problem is that it used to be in the ti-st driver itself,
> but it has been removed in a patch that says "different platforms have
> begun to have their own ways to power-up/down the chip." (eccf2979
> drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling).
Hrm, this is a strange patch for sure. Coming at times when we all suppose to
move to DT and get rid of such callbacks for drivers.
> This needs to be clarified first. I think we could use this for now and
> later fix this properly (hopefully move it back to the ti-st driver).
Can the offending patch be reverted?
As I said to Felipe, I don't have any objections against this patch. It fits
the purpose. But with the DT support (and removing callbacks to platform code)
you are going to have fair amount work.
--
Péter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
To: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
Cc: 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 10:59:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50F7CB70.5010003@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1358415316.6252.20.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
Hi Luca,
On 01/17/2013 10:35 AM, Luciano Coelho 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.
>
> I agree. The problem is that it used to be in the ti-st driver itself,
> but it has been removed in a patch that says "different platforms have
> begun to have their own ways to power-up/down the chip." (eccf2979
> drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling).
Hrm, this is a strange patch for sure. Coming at times when we all suppose to
move to DT and get rid of such callbacks for drivers.
> This needs to be clarified first. I think we could use this for now and
> later fix this properly (hopefully move it back to the ti-st driver).
Can the offending patch be reverted?
As I said to Felipe, I don't have any objections against this patch. It fits
the purpose. But with the DT support (and removing callbacks to platform code)
you are going to have fair amount work.
--
Péter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: peter.ujfalusi@ti.com (Peter Ujfalusi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [[PATCH v2]] OMAP: omap4-panda: add WiLink shared transport power functions
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:59:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50F7CB70.5010003@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1358415316.6252.20.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
Hi Luca,
On 01/17/2013 10:35 AM, Luciano Coelho 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.
>
> I agree. The problem is that it used to be in the ti-st driver itself,
> but it has been removed in a patch that says "different platforms have
> begun to have their own ways to power-up/down the chip." (eccf2979
> drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling).
Hrm, this is a strange patch for sure. Coming at times when we all suppose to
move to DT and get rid of such callbacks for drivers.
> This needs to be clarified first. I think we could use this for now and
> later fix this properly (hopefully move it back to the ti-st driver).
Can the offending patch be reverted?
As I said to Felipe, I don't have any objections against this patch. It fits
the purpose. But with the DT support (and removing callbacks to platform code)
you are going to have fair amount work.
--
P?ter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-17 9:59 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
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 [this message]
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=50F7CB70.5010003@ti.com \
--to=peter.ujfalusi@ti.com \
--cc=coelho@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=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.