[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1358757312.11746.11.camel@dhruva>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:05:12 +0530
From: Ashish Jangam <ashish.jangam@...tcummins.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Dajun Chen <dchen@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v1 2/5] regulator: da9055 change irq state to default
> -----Original Message-----
> > > > This patch changes the irq state from high to the now default low
> > > > state.
>
> > > > This patch is dependent on the DA9055 MFD.
>
> > > Why is this change required and why is there a dependency here?
>
> > It has been decided to have nIRQ therefore the main mfd IRQ state needs
>
> Won't this break all existing systems?
Since all of the existing users are using nIRQ therefore it was decided
to have the default state as nIRQ.
>
> > to be changed. And since mfd children follows mfd irq state therefore
> > the dependency; though in case of mfd this may not affect.
>
> What makes you say that there is a dependency here? It's really not at
> all obvious why a change to the primary IRQ signalling mechanism would
> affect the internal interrupts of the device.
Yes, functionally this dependency should not matter.However, if
mfd/primary irq state is low and its components are high then it shall
not look good. Therefore the term dependency was used, probably I should
have written it in a different manner.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists