| Message ID | 20160620105056.25843-5-m.niestroj@grinn-global.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
ping On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > --- > Depends on patch 1 in series > > Changes v1 -> v4: none > > drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { > DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), > }; > > +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { > + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), > +}; > + > struct tps65217_irq { > int mask; > int interrupt; > @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { > .resources = charger_resources, > .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", > }, > + { > + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), > + .resources = pb_resources, > + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", > + }, > }; > > static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) >
ping On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > --- > Depends on patch 1 in series > > Changes v1 -> v4: none > > drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { > DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), > }; > > +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { > + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), > +}; > + > struct tps65217_irq { > int mask; > int interrupt; > @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { > .resources = charger_resources, > .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", > }, > + { > + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), > + .resources = pb_resources, > + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", > + }, > }; > > static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) >
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > ping Don't do that! If you think the patch hasn't attracted attention in >2 weeks, then it's probably slipped through the gaps and you need to send a [RESEND]. However ... > On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> This patch has a maintainer Ack, so why are you pinging? > > --- > > Depends on patch 1 in series > > > > Changes v1 -> v4: none > > > > drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { > > DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), > > }; > > > > +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { > > + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), > > +}; > > + > > struct tps65217_irq { > > int mask; > > int interrupt; > > @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { > > .resources = charger_resources, > > .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", > > }, > > + { > > + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", > > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), > > + .resources = pb_resources, > > + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", > > + }, > > }; > > > > static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) > > >
On 30.08.2016 11:03, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > >> ping > > Don't do that! > > If you think the patch hasn't attracted attention in >2 weeks, then > it's probably slipped through the gaps and you need to send a > [RESEND]. Clear. > > However ... > >> On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: >>> Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> >>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > This patch has a maintainer Ack, so why are you pinging? Because I didn't see it applied anywhere and there were no new comments, so I thought it slipped somewhere. So my question is: what happens with the patch after maintainer Ack? Are we still waiting for some comments from the community? Do I still need to worry, that the patch might slipped? What is author's role now? > >>> --- >>> Depends on patch 1 in series >>> >>> Changes v1 -> v4: none >>> >>> drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>> index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { >>> DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), >>> }; >>> >>> +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { >>> + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), >>> +}; >>> + >>> struct tps65217_irq { >>> int mask; >>> int interrupt; >>> @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { >>> .resources = charger_resources, >>> .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", >>> }, >>> + { >>> + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", >>> + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), >>> + .resources = pb_resources, >>> + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", >>> + }, >>> }; >>> >>> static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) >>> >> >
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > On 30.08.2016 11:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > ping > > > > Don't do that! > > > > If you think the patch hasn't attracted attention in >2 weeks, then > > it's probably slipped through the gaps and you need to send a > > [RESEND]. > > Clear. > > > > > However ... > > > > > On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> > > > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > > > This patch has a maintainer Ack, so why are you pinging? > > Because I didn't see it applied anywhere and there were no new > comments, so I thought it slipped somewhere. > > So my question is: what happens with the patch after maintainer Ack? > Are we still waiting for some comments from the community? Do I still > need to worry, that the patch might slipped? What is author's role now? Since you sent the patches as a set, it is assumed there are some dependencies between them, or they are at least in some way related. To that end, it is normal for Maintainers (especially for me as the MFD Maintainer, since there often some complex ties into the leaf driver's changes) to wait until *all* of the patches have either been accepted or have acquired an Ack of their own to proceed. I believe we are still waiting on other patches to be reviewed, no? > > > > --- > > > > Depends on patch 1 in series > > > > > > > > Changes v1 -> v4: none > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { > > > > DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { > > > > + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > struct tps65217_irq { > > > > int mask; > > > > int interrupt; > > > > @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { > > > > .resources = charger_resources, > > > > .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", > > > > }, > > > > + { > > > > + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", > > > > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), > > > > + .resources = pb_resources, > > > > + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", > > > > + }, > > > > }; > > > > > > > > static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) > > > > > > > > > >
On 30.08.2016 11:50, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > >> On 30.08.2016 11:03, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: >>> >>>> ping >>> >>> Don't do that! >>> >>> If you think the patch hasn't attracted attention in >2 weeks, then >>> it's probably slipped through the gaps and you need to send a >>> [RESEND]. >> >> Clear. >> >>> >>> However ... >>> >>>> On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: >>>>> Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> >>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> >>> >>> This patch has a maintainer Ack, so why are you pinging? >> >> Because I didn't see it applied anywhere and there were no new >> comments, so I thought it slipped somewhere. >> >> So my question is: what happens with the patch after maintainer Ack? >> Are we still waiting for some comments from the community? Do I still >> need to worry, that the patch might slipped? What is author's role now? > > Since you sent the patches as a set, it is assumed there are some > dependencies between them, or they are at least in some way related. > To that end, it is normal for Maintainers (especially for me as the > MFD Maintainer, since there often some complex ties into the leaf > driver's changes) to wait until *all* of the patches have either been > accepted or have acquired an Ack of their own to proceed. > > I believe we are still waiting on other patches to be reviewed, no? I've just noticed, that patch 5 was only partially Acked. I will send a RESEND. However patch 2 is already in mainline. Should I contain this patch or remove it from the patch set? Additionally patch 3 has been queued into power-supply's -next branch. > >>>>> --- >>>>> Depends on patch 1 in series >>>>> >>>>> Changes v1 -> v4: none >>>>> >>>>> drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>>>> index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>>>> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { >>>>> DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { >>>>> + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> struct tps65217_irq { >>>>> int mask; >>>>> int interrupt; >>>>> @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { >>>>> .resources = charger_resources, >>>>> .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", >>>>> }, >>>>> + { >>>>> + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", >>>>> + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), >>>>> + .resources = pb_resources, >>>>> + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", >>>>> + }, >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > On 30.08.2016 11:50, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > On 30.08.2016 11:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > > > > > ping > > > > > > > > Don't do that! > > > > > > > > If you think the patch hasn't attracted attention in >2 weeks, then > > > > it's probably slipped through the gaps and you need to send a > > > > [RESEND]. > > > > > > Clear. > > > > > > > > > > > However ... > > > > > > > > > On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > > Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > This patch has a maintainer Ack, so why are you pinging? > > > > > > Because I didn't see it applied anywhere and there were no new > > > comments, so I thought it slipped somewhere. > > > > > > So my question is: what happens with the patch after maintainer Ack? > > > Are we still waiting for some comments from the community? Do I still > > > need to worry, that the patch might slipped? What is author's role now? > > > > Since you sent the patches as a set, it is assumed there are some > > dependencies between them, or they are at least in some way related. > > To that end, it is normal for Maintainers (especially for me as the > > MFD Maintainer, since there often some complex ties into the leaf > > driver's changes) to wait until *all* of the patches have either been > > accepted or have acquired an Ack of their own to proceed. > > > > I believe we are still waiting on other patches to be reviewed, no? > > I've just noticed, that patch 5 was only partially Acked. > > I will send a RESEND. However patch 2 is already in mainline. Should I > contain this patch or remove it from the patch set? Additionally > patch 3 has been queued into power-supply's -next branch. You should rebase the set and drop any patches which have already been applied. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Depends on patch 1 in series > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes v1 -> v4: none > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > > > index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > > > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { > > > > > > DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { > > > > > > + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > + > > > > > > struct tps65217_irq { > > > > > > int mask; > > > > > > int interrupt; > > > > > > @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { > > > > > > .resources = charger_resources, > > > > > > .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", > > > > > > }, > > > > > > + { > > > > > > + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", > > > > > > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), > > > > > > + .resources = pb_resources, > > > > > > + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", > > > > > > + }, > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
On 31.08.2016 13:17, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > >> On 30.08.2016 11:50, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: >>> >>>> On 30.08.2016 11:03, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ping >>>>> >>>>> Don't do that! >>>>> >>>>> If you think the patch hasn't attracted attention in >2 weeks, then >>>>> it's probably slipped through the gaps and you need to send a >>>>> [RESEND]. >>>> >>>> Clear. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> However ... >>>>> >>>>>> On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: >>>>>>> Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> >>>>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> This patch has a maintainer Ack, so why are you pinging? >>>> >>>> Because I didn't see it applied anywhere and there were no new >>>> comments, so I thought it slipped somewhere. >>>> >>>> So my question is: what happens with the patch after maintainer Ack? >>>> Are we still waiting for some comments from the community? Do I still >>>> need to worry, that the patch might slipped? What is author's role now? >>> >>> Since you sent the patches as a set, it is assumed there are some >>> dependencies between them, or they are at least in some way related. >>> To that end, it is normal for Maintainers (especially for me as the >>> MFD Maintainer, since there often some complex ties into the leaf >>> driver's changes) to wait until *all* of the patches have either been >>> accepted or have acquired an Ack of their own to proceed. >>> >>> I believe we are still waiting on other patches to be reviewed, no? >> >> I've just noticed, that patch 5 was only partially Acked. >> >> I will send a RESEND. However patch 2 is already in mainline. Should I >> contain this patch or remove it from the patch set? Additionally >> patch 3 has been queued into power-supply's -next branch. > > You should rebase the set and drop any patches which have already been > applied. So include or drop patch 3? > >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Depends on patch 1 in series >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changes v1 -> v4: none >>>>>>> >>>>>>> drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>>>>>> index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c >>>>>>> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { >>>>>>> DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { >>>>>>> + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), >>>>>>> +}; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> struct tps65217_irq { >>>>>>> int mask; >>>>>>> int interrupt; >>>>>>> @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { >>>>>>> .resources = charger_resources, >>>>>>> .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", >>>>>>> }, >>>>>>> + { >>>>>>> + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", >>>>>>> + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), >>>>>>> + .resources = pb_resources, >>>>>>> + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", >>>>>>> + }, >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Hi, On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 01:18:31PM +0200, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > You should rebase the set and drop any patches which have already been > > applied. > > So include or drop patch 3? Drop it and leave a note in the changelog. -- Sebastian
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > On 31.08.2016 13:17, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > On 30.08.2016 11:50, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 30.08.2016 11:03, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2016, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ping > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't do that! > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think the patch hasn't attracted attention in >2 weeks, then > > > > > > it's probably slipped through the gaps and you need to send a > > > > > > [RESEND]. > > > > > > > > > > Clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 20.06.2016 12:50, Marcin Niestroj wrote: > > > > > > > > Add tps65217 power buttor subdevice with assigned IRQ resources. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Niestroj <m.niestroj@grinn-global.com> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch has a maintainer Ack, so why are you pinging? > > > > > > > > > > Because I didn't see it applied anywhere and there were no new > > > > > comments, so I thought it slipped somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > So my question is: what happens with the patch after maintainer Ack? > > > > > Are we still waiting for some comments from the community? Do I still > > > > > need to worry, that the patch might slipped? What is author's role now? > > > > > > > > Since you sent the patches as a set, it is assumed there are some > > > > dependencies between them, or they are at least in some way related. > > > > To that end, it is normal for Maintainers (especially for me as the > > > > MFD Maintainer, since there often some complex ties into the leaf > > > > driver's changes) to wait until *all* of the patches have either been > > > > accepted or have acquired an Ack of their own to proceed. > > > > > > > > I believe we are still waiting on other patches to be reviewed, no? > > > > > > I've just noticed, that patch 5 was only partially Acked. > > > > > > I will send a RESEND. However patch 2 is already in mainline. Should I > > > contain this patch or remove it from the patch set? Additionally > > > patch 3 has been queued into power-supply's -next branch. > > > > You should rebase the set and drop any patches which have already been > > applied. > > So include or drop patch 3? You said it's been applied, so drop it. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Depends on patch 1 in series > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes v1 -> v4: none > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/mfd/tps65217.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > > > > > index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c > > > > > > > > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { > > > > > > > > DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { > > > > > > > > + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), > > > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > struct tps65217_irq { > > > > > > > > int mask; > > > > > > > > int interrupt; > > > > > > > > @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { > > > > > > > > .resources = charger_resources, > > > > > > > > .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", > > > > > > > > }, > > > > > > > > + { > > > > > > > > + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", > > > > > > > > + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), > > > > > > > > + .resources = pb_resources, > > > > > > > > + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", > > > > > > > > + }, > > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c index 41b5d59..57c8741 100644 --- a/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps65217.c @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct resource charger_resources[] = { DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_USB, "USB"), }; +static struct resource pb_resources[] = { + DEFINE_RES_IRQ_NAMED(TPS65217_IRQ_PB, "PB"), +}; + struct tps65217_irq { int mask; int interrupt; @@ -122,6 +126,12 @@ static struct mfd_cell tps65217s[] = { .resources = charger_resources, .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-charger", }, + { + .name = "tps65217-pwrbutton", + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(pb_resources), + .resources = pb_resources, + .of_compatible = "ti,tps65217-pwrbutton", + }, }; static irqreturn_t tps65217_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)