[RESEND PATCH v3 2/5] charger: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq

[RESEND PATCH v3 2/5] charger: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq

[Doug Anderson]

On the ARM Chromebook tps65090 has two masters: the AP (the main
processor running linux) and the EC (the embedded controller).  The AP
is allowed to mess with FETs but the EC is in charge of charge control.

The tps65090 interupt line is routed to both the AP and the EC, which
can cause quite a headache.  Having two people adjusting masks and
acking interrupts is a recipe for disaster.

In the shipping kernel we had a hack to have the AP pay attention to
the IRQ but not to ack it.  It also wasn't supposed to configure the
IRQ in any way.  That hack allowed us to detect when the device was
charging without messing with the EC's state.

The current tps65090 infrastructure makes the above difficult, and it
was a bit of a hack to begin with.  Rather than uglify the driver to
support it, just extend the driver's existing notion of "no irq" to
the charger.  This makes the charger code poll every 2 seconds for AC
detect, which is sufficient.

For proper functioning, requires (mfd: tps65090: Don't tell child
devices we have an IRQ if we don't).  If we don't have that patch
we'll simply fail to probe on devices without an interrupt (just like
we did before this patch).

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2:
- Split noirq (polling mode) changes into MFD and charger

 drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c b/drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c
index 8fc9d6d..cc26c12 100644
--- a/drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c
+++ b/drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c
@@ -17,9 +17,11 @@
  */
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/freezer.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/kthread.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/of_device.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
@@ -43,11 +45,15 @@
 #define TPS65090_VACG		BIT(1)
 #define TPS65090_NOITERM	BIT(5)
 
+#define POLL_INTERVAL		(HZ * 2)	/* Used when no irq */
+
 struct tps65090_charger {
 	struct	device	*dev;
 	int	ac_online;
 	int	prev_ac_online;
 	int	irq;
+	struct task_struct	*poll_task;
+	bool			passive_mode;
 	struct power_supply	ac;
 	struct tps65090_platform_data *pdata;
 };
@@ -60,6 +66,9 @@ static int tps65090_low_chrg_current(struct tps65090_charger *charger)
 {
 	int ret;
 
+	if (charger->passive_mode)
+		return 0;
+
 	ret = tps65090_write(charger->dev->parent, TPS65090_REG_CG_CTRL5,
 			TPS65090_NOITERM);
 	if (ret < 0) {
@@ -75,6 +84,9 @@ static int tps65090_enable_charging(struct tps65090_charger *charger)
 	int ret;
 	uint8_t ctrl0 = 0;
 
+	if (charger->passive_mode)
+		return 0;
+
 	ret = tps65090_read(charger->dev->parent, TPS65090_REG_CG_CTRL0,
 			    &ctrl0);
 	if (ret < 0) {
@@ -98,6 +110,9 @@ static int tps65090_config_charger(struct tps65090_charger *charger)
 	uint8_t intrmask = 0;
 	int ret;
 
+	if (charger->passive_mode)
+		return 0;
+
 	if (charger->pdata->enable_low_current_chrg) {
 		ret = tps65090_low_chrg_current(charger);
 		if (ret < 0) {
@@ -175,10 +190,14 @@ static irqreturn_t tps65090_charger_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
 	}
 
 	/* Clear interrupts. */
-	ret = tps65090_write(charger->dev->parent, TPS65090_REG_INTR_STS, 0x00);
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		dev_err(charger->dev, "%s(): Error in writing reg 0x%x\n",
+	if (!charger->passive_mode) {
+		ret = tps65090_write(charger->dev->parent,
+				     TPS65090_REG_INTR_STS, 0x00);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			dev_err(charger->dev,
+				"%s(): Error in writing reg 0x%x\n",
 				__func__, TPS65090_REG_INTR_STS);
+		}
 	}
 
 	if (charger->prev_ac_online != charger->ac_online)
@@ -209,6 +228,18 @@ static struct tps65090_platform_data *
 
 }
 
+static int tps65090_charger_poll_task(void *data)
+{
+	set_freezable();
+
+	while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
+		schedule_timeout_interruptible(POLL_INTERVAL);
+		try_to_freeze();
+		tps65090_charger_isr(-1, data);
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int tps65090_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct tps65090_charger *cdata;
@@ -255,22 +286,10 @@ static int tps65090_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	}
 
 	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
-	if (irq <= 0) {
-		dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Unable to get charger irq = %d\n", irq);
-		ret = irq;
-		goto fail_unregister_supply;
-	}
-
+	if (irq < 0)
+		irq = NO_IRQ;
 	cdata->irq = irq;
 
-	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, NULL,
-		tps65090_charger_isr, 0, "tps65090-charger", cdata);
-	if (ret) {
-		dev_err(cdata->dev, "Unable to register irq %d err %d\n", irq,
-			ret);
-		goto fail_unregister_supply;
-	}
-
 	ret = tps65090_config_charger(cdata);
 	if (ret < 0) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "charger config failed, err %d\n", ret);
@@ -296,6 +315,27 @@ static int tps65090_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		power_supply_changed(&cdata->ac);
 	}
 
+	if (irq != NO_IRQ) {
+		ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, NULL,
+			tps65090_charger_isr, 0, "tps65090-charger", cdata);
+		if (ret) {
+			dev_err(cdata->dev,
+				"Unable to register irq %d err %d\n", irq,
+				ret);
+			goto fail_unregister_supply;
+		}
+	} else {
+		cdata->poll_task = kthread_run(tps65090_charger_poll_task,
+					      cdata, "ktps65090charger");
+		cdata->passive_mode = true;
+		if (IS_ERR(cdata->poll_task)) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(cdata->poll_task);
+			dev_err(cdata->dev,
+				"Unable to run kthread err %d\n", ret);
+			goto fail_unregister_supply;
+		}
+	}
+
 	return 0;
 
 fail_unregister_supply:
@@ -308,6 +348,8 @@ static int tps65090_charger_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct tps65090_charger *cdata = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
 
+	if (cdata->irq == NO_IRQ)
+		kthread_stop(cdata->poll_task);
 	power_supply_unregister(&cdata->ac);
 
 	return 0;
-- 
1.9.1.423.g4596e3a

[RESEND PATCH v3 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

[Doug Anderson]

An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs
wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report
overcurrent).  The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD
backlight on the Samsung ARM Chromebook (FET1).  Problems were
especially prevalent when the device was plugged in to AC power (when
the backlight voltage was higher).

Mitigate the problem by adding retries on the enables of the FETs,
which works around the problem fairly effectively.

Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Spang <spang@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
---
Changes in v3:
- Fixed kernel-doc notation for return

Changes in v2:
- Separated the overcurrent and retries changes into two patches.
- No longer open code fet_is_enabled().
- Fixed tps6090 typo.
- For loop => "while true".
- Removed a set of braces.

 drivers/regulator/tps65090-regulator.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 140 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/tps65090-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/tps65090-regulator.c
index ca04e9f..2057e2e 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/tps65090-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/tps65090-regulator.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
  */
 
 #include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/gpio.h>
 #include <linux/of_gpio.h>
@@ -28,7 +29,13 @@
 #include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h>
 #include <linux/mfd/tps65090.h>
 
+#define MAX_CTRL_READ_TRIES	5
+#define MAX_FET_ENABLE_TRIES	1000
+
+#define CTRL_EN_BIT		0 /* Regulator enable bit, active high */
 #define CTRL_WT_BIT		2 /* Regulator wait time 0 bit */
+#define CTRL_PG_BIT		4 /* Regulator power good bit, 1=good */
+#define CTRL_TO_BIT		7 /* Regulator timeout bit, 1=wait */
 
 #define MAX_OVERCURRENT_WAIT	3 /* Overcurrent wait must be <= this */
 
@@ -80,40 +87,158 @@ static int tps65090_reg_set_overcurrent_wait(struct tps65090_regulator *ri,
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static struct regulator_ops tps65090_reg_contol_ops = {
+/**
+ * tps65090_try_enable_fet - Try to enable a FET
+ *
+ * @rdev:	Regulator device
+ *
+ * Return: 0 if ok, -ENOTRECOVERABLE if the FET power good bit did not get
+ * set, or some other -ve value if another error occurred (e.g. i2c error)
+ */
+static int tps65090_try_enable_fet(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
+{
+	unsigned int control;
+	int ret, i;
+
+	ret = regmap_update_bits(rdev->regmap, rdev->desc->enable_reg,
+				 rdev->desc->enable_mask,
+				 rdev->desc->enable_mask);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(&rdev->dev, "Error in updating reg %#x\n",
+			rdev->desc->enable_reg);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	for (i = 0; i < MAX_CTRL_READ_TRIES; i++) {
+		ret = regmap_read(rdev->regmap, rdev->desc->enable_reg,
+				  &control);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return ret;
+
+		if (!(control & BIT(CTRL_TO_BIT)))
+			break;
+
+		usleep_range(1000, 1500);
+	}
+	if (!(control & BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT)))
+		return -ENOTRECOVERABLE;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+/**
+ * tps65090_fet_enable - Enable a FET, trying a few times if it fails
+ *
+ * Some versions of the tps65090 have issues when turning on the FETs.
+ * This function goes through several steps to ensure the best chance of the
+ * FET going on.  Specifically:
+ * - We'll make sure that we bump the "overcurrent wait" to the maximum, which
+ *   increases the chances that we'll turn on properly.
+ * - We'll retry turning the FET on multiple times (turning off in between).
+ *
+ * @rdev:	Regulator device
+ *
+ * Return: 0 if ok, non-zero if it fails.
+ */
+static int tps65090_fet_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
+{
+	int ret, tries;
+
+	/*
+	 * Try enabling multiple times until we succeed since sometimes the
+	 * first try times out.
+	 */
+	tries = 0;
+	while (true) {
+		ret = tps65090_try_enable_fet(rdev);
+		if (!ret)
+			break;
+		if (ret != -ENOTRECOVERABLE || tries == MAX_FET_ENABLE_TRIES)
+			goto err;
+
+		/* Try turning the FET off (and then on again) */
+		ret = regmap_update_bits(rdev->regmap, rdev->desc->enable_reg,
+					 rdev->desc->enable_mask, 0);
+		if (ret)
+			goto err;
+
+		tries++;
+	}
+
+	if (tries)
+		dev_warn(&rdev->dev, "reg %#x enable ok after %d tries\n",
+			 rdev->desc->enable_reg, tries);
+
+	return 0;
+err:
+	dev_warn(&rdev->dev, "reg %#x enable failed\n", rdev->desc->enable_reg);
+	WARN_ON(1);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static struct regulator_ops tps65090_reg_control_ops = {
 	.enable		= regulator_enable_regmap,
 	.disable	= regulator_disable_regmap,
 	.is_enabled	= regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
 };
 
+static struct regulator_ops tps65090_fet_control_ops = {
+	.enable		= tps65090_fet_enable,
+	.disable	= regulator_disable_regmap,
+	.is_enabled	= regulator_is_enabled_regmap,
+};
+
 static struct regulator_ops tps65090_ldo_ops = {
 };
 
-#define tps65090_REG_DESC(_id, _sname, _en_reg, _ops)	\
+#define tps65090_REG_DESC(_id, _sname, _en_reg, _en_bits, _ops)	\
 {							\
 	.name = "TPS65090_RAILS"#_id,			\
 	.supply_name = _sname,				\
 	.id = TPS65090_REGULATOR_##_id,			\
 	.ops = &_ops,					\
 	.enable_reg = _en_reg,				\
-	.enable_mask = BIT(0),				\
+	.enable_val = _en_bits,				\
+	.enable_mask = _en_bits,			\
 	.type = REGULATOR_VOLTAGE,			\
 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,				\
 }
 
 static struct regulator_desc tps65090_regulator_desc[] = {
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(DCDC1, "vsys1",   0x0C, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(DCDC2, "vsys2",   0x0D, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(DCDC3, "vsys3",   0x0E, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET1,  "infet1",  0x0F, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET2,  "infet2",  0x10, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET3,  "infet3",  0x11, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET4,  "infet4",  0x12, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET5,  "infet5",  0x13, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET6,  "infet6",  0x14, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET7,  "infet7",  0x15, tps65090_reg_contol_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(LDO1,  "vsys-l1", 0,    tps65090_ldo_ops),
-	tps65090_REG_DESC(LDO2,  "vsys-l2", 0,    tps65090_ldo_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(DCDC1, "vsys1",   0x0C, BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT),
+			  tps65090_reg_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(DCDC2, "vsys2",   0x0D, BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT),
+			  tps65090_reg_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(DCDC3, "vsys3",   0x0E, BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT),
+			  tps65090_reg_control_ops),
+
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET1,  "infet1",  0x0F,
+			  BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT) | BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT),
+			  tps65090_fet_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET2,  "infet2",  0x10,
+			  BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT) | BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT),
+			  tps65090_fet_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET3,  "infet3",  0x11,
+			  BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT) | BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT),
+			  tps65090_fet_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET4,  "infet4",  0x12,
+			  BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT) | BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT),
+			  tps65090_fet_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET5,  "infet5",  0x13,
+			  BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT) | BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT),
+			  tps65090_fet_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET6,  "infet6",  0x14,
+			  BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT) | BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT),
+			  tps65090_fet_control_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(FET7,  "infet7",  0x15,
+			  BIT(CTRL_EN_BIT) | BIT(CTRL_PG_BIT),
+			  tps65090_fet_control_ops),
+
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(LDO1,  "vsys-l1", 0, 0,
+			  tps65090_ldo_ops),
+	tps65090_REG_DESC(LDO2,  "vsys-l2", 0, 0,
+			  tps65090_ldo_ops),
 };
 
 static inline bool is_dcdc(int id)
-- 
1.9.1.423.g4596e3a

Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/5] charger: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq

[Doug Anderson]

Anton,

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> On the ARM Chromebook tps65090 has two masters: the AP (the main
> processor running linux) and the EC (the embedded controller).  The AP
> is allowed to mess with FETs but the EC is in charge of charge control.
>
> The tps65090 interupt line is routed to both the AP and the EC, which
> can cause quite a headache.  Having two people adjusting masks and
> acking interrupts is a recipe for disaster.
>
> In the shipping kernel we had a hack to have the AP pay attention to
> the IRQ but not to ack it.  It also wasn't supposed to configure the
> IRQ in any way.  That hack allowed us to detect when the device was
> charging without messing with the EC's state.
>
> The current tps65090 infrastructure makes the above difficult, and it
> was a bit of a hack to begin with.  Rather than uglify the driver to
> support it, just extend the driver's existing notion of "no irq" to
> the charger.  This makes the charger code poll every 2 seconds for AC
> detect, which is sufficient.
>
> For proper functioning, requires (mfd: tps65090: Don't tell child
> devices we have an IRQ if we don't).  If we don't have that patch
> we'll simply fail to probe on devices without an interrupt (just like
> we did before this patch).
>
> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> Changes in v3: None
> Changes in v2:
> - Split noirq (polling mode) changes into MFD and charger
>
>  drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

All the rest of this series has been acked and applied.  Do you have
time to review this patch?

Thanks!  :)

-Doug

Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 279 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:56:05AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs
> wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report
> overcurrent).  The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD

Applied, thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/5] charger: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> Anton,
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On the ARM Chromebook tps65090 has two masters: the AP (the main
>> processor running linux) and the EC (the embedded controller).  The AP
>> is allowed to mess with FETs but the EC is in charge of charge control.
>>
>> The tps65090 interupt line is routed to both the AP and the EC, which
>> can cause quite a headache.  Having two people adjusting masks and
>> acking interrupts is a recipe for disaster.
>>
>> In the shipping kernel we had a hack to have the AP pay attention to
>> the IRQ but not to ack it.  It also wasn't supposed to configure the
>> IRQ in any way.  That hack allowed us to detect when the device was
>> charging without messing with the EC's state.
>>
>> The current tps65090 infrastructure makes the above difficult, and it
>> was a bit of a hack to begin with.  Rather than uglify the driver to
>> support it, just extend the driver's existing notion of "no irq" to
>> the charger.  This makes the charger code poll every 2 seconds for AC
>> detect, which is sufficient.
>>
>> For proper functioning, requires (mfd: tps65090: Don't tell child
>> devices we have an IRQ if we don't).  If we don't have that patch
>> we'll simply fail to probe on devices without an interrupt (just like
>> we did before this patch).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>> ---
>> Changes in v3: None
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Split noirq (polling mode) changes into MFD and charger
>>
>>  drivers/power/tps65090-charger.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> All the rest of this series has been acked and applied.  Do you have
> time to review this patch?
>
> Thanks!  :)

FWIW, I've seen very little email traffic from Anton this year, he
might have limited time for maintainership at the moment. Usually what
we do in these cases is that we give the maintainer as much time as
possible, but eventually if there's no action, and the patches look
reasonable, we apply them with the maintainer on Cc: line in the
signed-offs. Or we send them to/through akpm, which tends to be the
catch-all for high-latency maintainers, etc.

Since this patch isn't holding anything up, let's give Anton as much
time as possible to review, and revisit in ~2 weeks (so it has time to
land somewhere in time for the merge window).


-Olof

Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/5] charger: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq

[Anton Vorontsov]

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:51:28AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > All the rest of this series has been acked and applied.  Do you have
> > time to review this patch?
> >
> > Thanks!  :)
> 
> FWIW, I've seen very little email traffic from Anton this year, he
> might have limited time for maintainership at the moment.

Yup.

commit 573189354b7c97cd2256b87cf083ee435584594e
Author: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue Jan 21 03:33:09 2014 +0400

    MAINTAINERS: Pick up power supply maintainership
    
    Anton stated that he would have to abandon power supply maintainership
    due to the lack of time. By agreement with him and David, pick up power
    supply tree.
    
    Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>
    Acked-by: Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>

Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/5] charger: tps65090: Allow charger module to be used when no irq

[Doug Anderson]

Anton,

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:51:28AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > All the rest of this series has been acked and applied.  Do you have
>> > time to review this patch?
>> >
>> > Thanks!  :)
>>
>> FWIW, I've seen very little email traffic from Anton this year, he
>> might have limited time for maintainership at the moment.
>
> Yup.
>
> commit 573189354b7c97cd2256b87cf083ee435584594e
> Author: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>
> Date:   Tue Jan 21 03:33:09 2014 +0400
>
>     MAINTAINERS: Pick up power supply maintainership
>
>     Anton stated that he would have to abandon power supply maintainership
>     due to the lack of time. By agreement with him and David, pick up power
>     supply tree.
>
>     Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>
>     Acked-by: Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>

Doh, thanks for the pointer.


Dmitry: you were CCed on the patch.  Do you still have it in your
email somewhere?  I'm happy to repost it with you in the "To" line if
it's helpful.

Thanks!  :)

-Doug