[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160125124123.GQ6588@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:41:23 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Lothar Waßmann <LW@...O-electronics.de>
Cc: Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: ltc3589: make IRQ optional
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 01:37:31PM +0100, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:26:10 +0000 Mark Brown wrote:
> > You're not just making the interrupt optional, you are also implementing
> > polling support. That's really unusual and there's no clear reason for
> Any suggestions how to handle this case in a more sensible way?
The above, for example - make the interrupt optional.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists