linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] ARM: tegra: acer-a500: Add atmel,wakeup-method property

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YFzTWuUZbdXvnpHC@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:15:54 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>, Nick Dyer <nick@...anahar.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] ARM: tegra: acer-a500: Add atmel,wakeup-method
 property

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:10:25PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 03:40:28PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:21:58PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > Acer A500 uses Atmel Maxtouch 1386 touchscreen controller. This controller
> > > has WAKE line which could be connected to I2C clock lane, dedicated GPIO
> > > or fixed to HIGH level. Controller wakes up from a deep sleep when WAKE
> > > line is asserted low. Acer A500 has WAKE line connected to I2C clock and
> > > Linux device driver doesn't work property without knowing what wakeup
> > > method is used by h/w.
> > > 
> > > Add atmel,wakeup-method property to the touchscreen node.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
> > 
> > Applied, thank you.
> 
> I noticed that you had applied this as I was applying a different patch
> that touches the same area and it causes a conflict. In general I prefer
> to pick up all device tree changes into the Tegra tree, specifically to
> avoid such conflicts.
> 
> That said, I didn't see an email from Stephen about this causing a
> conflict in linux-next, so perhaps it's fine. If this pops up again it
> might be worth considering to drop this from your tree so that I can
> resolve the conflict in the Tegra tree.

Sorry about that, I went ahead and dropped the patch from my branch.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry