Message ID | 3133c2fe-427e-f742-9647-d1f45eeaed4a@redhat.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:56 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 13-03-17 18:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 21:58 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > I will incorporate slightly different version of this (due to > > changes > > happened) into my branch. Please verify if everything is okay. > > I just noticed that my patch was botched up a bit, it is > taking a more complex approach then needed and it contained a bug > (it did lookup->index = index, which should be lookup->index = i). > > I've just finished writing a v2 (sorry). NP. Does it mean this one replaces both from v2? (to me looks like) > I've attached the v2 here, > note this is against an unmodified v4.11-rc2 rather then your branch > as I needed a clean base to debug some problems. But it should be > easy to adapt to your branch I think. > > Note this can go upstream either way (through your branch or > directly since it is based on a clean v4.11-rc2 now) but it is > probably easier to take it upstream through your branch to > avoid conflicts. I will rebase my series on your patch, but I'm going to slightly modify it anyway (basically squash one of my patches).
Hi, On 13-03-17 20:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:56 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> On 13-03-17 18:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 21:58 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> I will incorporate slightly different version of this (due to >>> changes >>> happened) into my branch. Please verify if everything is okay. >> >> I just noticed that my patch was botched up a bit, it is >> taking a more complex approach then needed and it contained a bug >> (it did lookup->index = index, which should be lookup->index = i). >> >> I've just finished writing a v2 (sorry). > > NP. > > Does it mean this one replaces both from v2? (to me looks like) Yes it replaces both. >> I've attached the v2 here, >> note this is against an unmodified v4.11-rc2 rather then your branch >> as I needed a clean base to debug some problems. But it should be >> easy to adapt to your branch I think. >> >> Note this can go upstream either way (through your branch or >> directly since it is based on a clean v4.11-rc2 now) but it is >> probably easier to take it upstream through your branch to >> avoid conflicts. > > I will rebase my series on your patch, but I'm going to slightly modify > it anyway (basically squash one of my patches). Ok, sounds good. If you're going to use my patch as a base, shall I cherry-pick the version with your changes squashed and submit that upstream stand-alone ? Regards, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 20:23 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 13-03-17 20:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:56 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > On 13-03-17 18:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 21:58 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > I will rebase my series on your patch, but I'm going to slightly > > modify > > it anyway (basically squash one of my patches). > > Ok, sounds good. If you're going to use my patch as a base, > shall I cherry-pick the version with your changes squashed and > submit that upstream stand-alone ? If you want to, I have no objections. Lemme submit the branch first.
On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 21:31 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 20:23 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 13-03-17 20:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:56 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > On 13-03-17 18:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 21:58 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > I will rebase my series on your patch, but I'm going to slightly > > > modify > > > it anyway (basically squash one of my patches). > > > > Ok, sounds good. If you're going to use my patch as a base, > > shall I cherry-pick the version with your changes squashed and > > submit that upstream stand-alone ? > > If you want to, I have no objections. > Lemme submit the branch first. Done. Please, test it!
Hi, On 13-03-17 20:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 21:31 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 20:23 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 13-03-17 20:19, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 18:56 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>> On 13-03-17 18:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 21:58 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> I will rebase my series on your patch, but I'm going to slightly >>>> modify >>>> it anyway (basically squash one of my patches). >>> >>> Ok, sounds good. If you're going to use my patch as a base, >>> shall I cherry-pick the version with your changes squashed and >>> submit that upstream stand-alone ? >> >> If you want to, I have no objections. >> Lemme submit the branch first. Ok. > Done. > > Please, test it! I've just completed tested your version of the patch (but not your entire branch, sorry -ENOTIME) on 2 machines, so I'm going to post it upstream now. Regards, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From 93c2c9334a24b845c5e816299d61b92f93601b07 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 18:43:30 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] gpio: acpi: acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get: ignore -EPROBE_DEFER for unselected gpioints When acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get gets called with an index of say 2, it should not care if acpi_get_gpiod for index 0 or 1 returns -EPROBE_DEFER. This allows drivers which request a gpioint with index > 0 to function if there is no gpiochip driver (loaded) for gpioints with a lower index. Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> --- Changes in v2: -Completely new patch replacing my previous somewhat broken attempt --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 11 ++++++++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c index 9b37a36..fc6f34a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c @@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_node_get_gpiod(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, */ int acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(struct acpi_device *adev, int index) { - int idx, i; + int idx, i, irq; unsigned int irq_flags; int ret = -ENOENT; @@ -660,13 +660,18 @@ int acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(struct acpi_device *adev, int index) struct gpio_desc *desc; desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, NULL, i, &info); - if (IS_ERR(desc)) { + /* Ignore -EPROBE_DEFER, it only matters if idx matches */ + if (IS_ERR(desc) && PTR_ERR(desc) != -EPROBE_DEFER) { ret = PTR_ERR(desc); break; } if (info.gpioint && idx++ == index) { - int irq = gpiod_to_irq(desc); + if (IS_ERR(desc)) { + ret = PTR_ERR(desc); + break; + } + irq = gpiod_to_irq(desc); if (irq < 0) return irq; -- 2.9.3