RE: [PATCH] rtc: tps65910: Use platform_get_irq to get RTC irqdetails

[Venu Byravarasu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:54 PM
> To: Venu Byravarasu
> Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; a.zummo@xxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rtc-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: tps65910: Use platform_get_irq to get RTC irq
> details
> 
> On 09/24/2012 12:18 AM, Venu Byravarasu wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:21 PM
> >> To: Venu Byravarasu
> >> Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; a.zummo@xxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rtc-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: tps65910: Use platform_get_irq to get RTC irq
> >> details
> >>
> >> On 09/21/2012 05:00 AM, Venu Byravarasu wrote:
> >>> As RTC driver needs only irq number from platform data,
> >>> using platform_get_irq(), instead of generic dev_get_platdata().
> >>
> >> I assume this patch depends on "mfd: tps65910: Add alarm interrupt of
> >> TPS65910 RTC to mfd device list" which you posted just before? If so,
> >> the two patches should go through the same tree to avoid "git bisect"
> >> issues.
> >>
> >> Also, I thought you needed to fix the MFD driver to call
> >> mfd_add_devices() only after all the IRQ stuff had been set up -
> >> otherwise, when the RTC driver calls devm_request_threaded_irq(), the
> >> parent IRQ domain that the IRQ points at won't exist, and the call will
> >> fail.
> >
> > No, I do not agree completely here.
> > Current patch just changes the way to get irq info in the RTC driver.
> > If proper irq number is passed from MFD, then it proceeds further and
> deals with it.
> > In case of missing valid irq info, this returns error as in earlier case.
> >
> > I agree with you that this patch alone cannot make RTC completely
> functional,
> > till we get mfd patch as well.
> >
> > However should lack of mfd changes really block this patch, as these two
> are
> > independent  drivers.
> 
> OK, if this feature (either the RTC as a whole, or the RTC driver
> retrieving and using the interrupt) doesn't already work, then as you
> say there are no dependencies, so this is fine.

Thanks Stephen.
Will remove the unrelated changes as pointed by you on 1st patch and
send updated patch.
 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/