[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-gpio
Subject:    Re: dwapb: a bug fix a few cleanups, v2
From:       Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth () gmail ! com>
Date:       2014-03-25 21:39:00
Message-ID: 5331F774.909 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 03/25/2014 10:26 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 09:45 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>> <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Since Alan said that he had drop two patches from earlier series to make
>>> it work I decided to spent some extra time to check if this is really the
>>> case.
>>> I dropped "gpio: dwapb: do not create the irq mapping upfront." until the
>>> discussion there is over.
>>>
>>> This series has been tested back ported and tested on a v3.13 kernel with
>>> the dummy test [0] here. It was tested on the Arrow board and the dev kit. I
>>> tested edge and level interrupts. On the Arrow board releasing the button
>>> causes a lot of interrupts so I assume debouncing is no working well
>>> there. On the dev kit I see only one interrupt. If I realse it really
>>> slowly, then the extra interrupts are visible there as well but way less.
>>>
>>> [0] http://breakpoint.cc/gpio-dwapb-test.c
>>
>> Okay so can we have Jamie and Sebastian H. have a look at this
>> series?
> 
> I'd love to test it and have a closer look, but we are way behind on
> gpio and especially gpio irqs on mach-berlin.
> 
> I will look at the patches, but I guess if it doesn't break socfpga
> or any other user of it, it is fine.

Except a small comment about for loop in 6/7 the dwapb related patches
look good to me.

Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]