[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190521132004.GG9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:20:04 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
wsa@...-dreams.de, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, jbroadus@...il.com,
patches@...nsource.cirrus.com,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] i2c: core: Move ACPI IRQ handling to probe time
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:11:04PM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:57:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:27:28PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:49:34AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > > > Bring the ACPI path in sync with the device tree path and handle all the
> > > > IRQ fetching at probe time. This leaves the only IRQ handling at device
> > > > registration time being that which is passed directly through the board
> > > > info as either a resource or an actual IRQ number.
> > >
> > > I don't see issues with this approach. Cc'd Jarkko and Andy just in case
> > > I missed something.
> >
> > I failed to see the i2c_acpi_get_irq() in the current code.
> > What kernel version do you use?
> > Can we see the changes against vanilla / i2c-next?
> >
>
> It's added by the first patch in the chain:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/20/281
>
> I could resend the series with you and Jarkko on CC if that would
> be better.
That would be better.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists