[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1358932452.6252.169.camel@cumari.coelho.fi>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:14:12 +0200
From: Luciano Coelho <coelho@...com>
To: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
CC: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<balbi@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "drivers/misc/ti-st: remove gpio handling"
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 10:05 +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 10:04 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> > On 01/22/2013 10:31 PM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> >> I thought about checking exactly what we need as delays and whether we
> >> really need to do all that toggling. At least in some boards, the
> >> toggles are not needed, but I don't know for sure whether it works in
> >> all different variations of the chip, so I kept them to be safe. Also,
> >> I tried to deviate as little as possible from a plain revert, since I'd
> >> like to get this into stable as well.
> >
> > I can not find the documentation for the WiLink, but I would guess that it
> > needs some delay between high->low(off)->(wait)->high(on)->(power-on-time)->up
Yes, we probably need some kind of delay. I'm not sure about the
low-high-low kind of thing though. I'll try to figure it out.
> But mdelay() looks a bit overkill IMHO.
Yes, most likely we can use usleep or something. I'll look into that as
part of my clean-up series. ;)
--
Luca.
--
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