On 17.06.2020 16:52, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote: > On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 13:37 +0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> [External] >> >> On 02.06.2020 11:54, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 07:50:23 +0000 >>> "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 2020-05-31 at 16:40 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2020 14:38:55 +0300 >>>>> Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch should be squashed into the first one, as the first one is >>>>>> breaking the build (intentionally) to make the IIO core files easier >>>>>> to >>>>>> review. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Friend poke. Version log? >>>> >>>> Version log is in the first patch. >>>> I was wondering if I omitted it. >>>> Seems, this time I didn't. But I admit, it probably would have been better >>>> here. >>> Ah fair enough. That works fine if there is a cover letter but not >>> so much just putting things in the first patch! >>>>> Other than the wistful comment below (which I'm not expecting you to >>>>> do anything about btw!) whole series looks good to me. >>>>> >>>>> These are obviously no functional changes (I think) so it's only really >>>>> patch 2 that >>>>> could do with more eyes and acks. >>>>> >>>>> Far as I can tell that case is fine as well because of the protections >>>>> on being in the right mode, but more eyes on that would be great. >>>>> >>>>> So assuming that's fine, what commit message do you want me to use for >>>>> the fused single patch? >>>> >>>> Commit message-wise: I think the message in the first commit would be >>>> mostly sufficient. >>>> No idea what other description would be needed. >>>> >>>> So, maybe something like: >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> All devices using a triggered buffer need to attach and detach the trigger >>>> to the device in order to properly work. Instead of doing this in each and >>>> every driver by hand move this into the core. >>>> >>>> At this point in time, all drivers should have been resolved to >>>> attach/detach the poll-function in the same order. >>>> >>>> This patch removes all explicit calls of iio_triggered_buffer_postenable() >>>> & iio_triggered_buffer_predisable() in all drivers, since the core handles >>>> now the pollfunc attach/detach. >>>> >>>> The more peculiar change is for the 'at91-sama5d2_adc' driver, since it's >>>> not obvious that removing the hooks doesn't break anything** >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> Looks good. >>> >>>> ** for the comment about 'at91-sama5d2_adc', we really do need to get some >>>> testing; otherwise this risks breaking it. >> >> Hi, >> >> I can test it, do we have any patchwork so I can easily download the >> patches ? >> I have issues when applying them. > > Is this good? > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11568743/ > Series: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-iio/list/?series=293141 > > Many thanks > Alex On at91-sama5d2-adc driver, sama5d2-xplained board, Tested-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> I applied all three patches and tested together with the other patch on sama5d2-adc driver. It looks to be working fine. If I discover something later, I will let you know. Thanks > >> >> Thanks ! >> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan >>>>> >>>>>> static const struct iio_trigger_ops atlas_interrupt_trigger_ops = { >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c >>>>>> b/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c >>>>>> index 17606eca42b4..8e13c53d4360 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/dummy/iio_simple_dummy_buffer.c >>>>>> @@ -99,20 +99,6 @@ static irqreturn_t iio_simple_dummy_trigger_h(int >>>>>> irq, void *p) >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> static const struct iio_buffer_setup_ops >>>>>> iio_simple_dummy_buffer_setup_ops = { >>>>>> - /* >>>>>> - * iio_triggered_buffer_postenable: >>>>>> - * Generic function that simply attaches the pollfunc to the >>>>>> trigger. >>>>>> - * Replace this to mess with hardware state before we attach the >>>>>> - * trigger. >>>>>> - */ >>>>>> - .postenable = &iio_triggered_buffer_postenable, >>>>>> - /* >>>>>> - * iio_triggered_buffer_predisable: >>>>>> - * Generic function that simple detaches the pollfunc from the >>>>>> trigger. >>>>>> - * Replace this to put hardware state back again after the trigger >>>>>> is >>>>>> - * detached but before userspace knows we have disabled the ring. >>>>>> - */ >>>>>> - .predisable = &iio_triggered_buffer_predisable, >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>> Hmm. Guess we should probably 'invent' a reason to illustrate the bufer >>>>> ops in the dummy example. Anyone feeling creative? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >>>> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel__;!!A3Ni8CS0y2Y!ulH92S3o_JWLMQfg5VBrFknwc_-a0K5AHpJBrTEB-RtYEp7PnRJ9jA_EacOzFQmbNIKO-Q$ > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >
