[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170112184101.slxulrvreq7zl2pc@ninjato>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:41:01 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: do not enable fall back to Host Notify by default
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 08:57:22PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Falling back unconditionally to HostNotify as primary client's interrupt
> breaks some drivers which alter their functionality depending on whether
> interrupt is present or not, so let's introduce a board flag telling I2C
> core explicitly if we want wired interrupt or HostNotify-based one:
> I2C_CLIENT_HOST_NOTIFY.
>
> For DT-based systems we introduce "host-notify" property that we convert
> to I2C_CLIENT_HOST_NOTIFY board flag.
>
> Tested-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Applied to for-current, thanks!
How do we handle driver fixes? Shall I take them via I2C to have the
dependency clear? Or can they go seperately?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists