[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdai55JSN+dkaYu96FTDDVSa8bHZFkBS6M1u3gPUDmpE_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 22:25:55 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, ccross@...roid.com, olof@...om.net,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] If an IRQ is a GPIO, request and configure it
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:40:17AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> Trying to go from IRQ to GPIO is not a good idea - most of the
>> IRQ <-> GPIO macros we have today are just plain broken. Many of them
>> just add or subtract a constant, which means non-GPIO IRQs have an
>> apparant GPIO number too. Couple this with the fact that all positive
>> GPIO numbers are valid, and this is a recipe for wrong GPIOs getting
>> used and GPIOs being requested for non-GPIO IRQs.
>
> Yes, and there's a pile without these defined/
And I'm piling a few patches *deleting* irq_to_gpio() from platforms that
define but actually don't use it, like U300 and SA1100.
Linus Walleij
--
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