[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71402233-e0f1-6496-92a4-59ebe2f433a3@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 20:26:37 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.crestez@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>,
Giuseppe Barba <giuseppe.barba@...com>,
Denis Ciocca <denis.ciocca@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] iio: st_sensors: Init trigger before irq request
On 24/05/16 22:54, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Crestez Dan Leonard
> <leonard.crestez@...el.com> wrote:
>> [Me]
>>> However I think my patch fixing the thread issue will collide
>>> by being close in context to this so it'd be great if you
>>> could resend it on top of
>>> "iio: st_sensors: switch to a threaded interrupt"?
>>
>> I checked my local git tree and this was already on top of v6 of that
>> patch.
>
> OK no problem then.
>
>> I think this issue is much less likely to cause problems without
>> it.
>
> Yeah.
>
>> Perhaps it should be incorporated into your patch?
>
> No better keep them separate.
Went on fine. Applied to the fixes-togreg-post-rc1 branch.
Whilst technically this was ugly before, it only became an issue once
we had shared interrupts. As such I'm not marking it for stable.
Thanks,
Jonathan
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists