[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8A42379416420646B9BFAC9682273B6D0E3F4420@limkexm3.ad.analog.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:55:45 +0100
From: "Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>
To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: "Mike Frysinger" <vapier@...too.org>,
"Samuel Ortiz" <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
<uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Bryan Wu" <cooloney@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] mfd: ADP5520 Multifunction LCD Backlight and KeypadInput Device Driver
>From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com]
>On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:23:52PM +0100, Hennerich, Michael wrote:
>> >From: Mark Brown [mailto:broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com]
>
>> >This notifier stuff looks an awful lot like an interrupt controller
>> >driver. Now that it's possible to implement support for an I2C/SPI
>> >driven interrupt controller it'd be good to use that rather than
having
>> >a custom API if that's possible.
>
>> Honestly this notifier chain is a clean approach and serves its
purpose
>> here pretty well.
>> IMHO it's much more preferable than pretending there is a virtual
GPIO
>> that doesn't exist and a MFD subdev could request.
>
>I'm not sure what the association with virtual gpios is? This is all
>separate to gpiolib except in that it would mean that a gpio driver for
>the device would be able to export these interrupts to its clients.
This is what I meant.
So you propose having the MFD Core as well as its subdevs requesting the
ADP5520 IRQ (client->irq) IRQF_SHARED? I think we already excluded us
from using this option when we were asked to move to the NEW threaded
irqs?
-Michael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists