[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb+txD9hfhs7pfnzmDuU59VXEdzJc86z=tdy2yqYBCqOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:00:34 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Drasko DRASKOVIC <drasko.draskovic@...il.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][GPIO] Add IRQ edge setter to gpiolib
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Drasko DRASKOVIC
<drasko.draskovic@...il.com> wrote:
> [Me]
>> If I understand correctly the below more or less exports
>> struct irq_chip to userspace,
>> trying to hide it by instead exposing a property of the
>> containing struct gpio_chip and it worries me.
>
> No, it should not.
You are exporting all of the defines from irq.h,
IRQ_TYPE_NONE, IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING, etc
to userspace. These are defined in <linux/irq.h> and that file
has this comment on top:
/*
* Please do not include this file in generic code. There is currently
* no requirement for any architecture to implement anything held
* within this file.
*
* Thanks. --rmk
*/
And that comment is even only about generic *KERNEL* code,
userspace is way, way more than that.
> It operates only on already exported gpiochip
> (similar to gpio_export_link()).
> It just helps exported GPIO be configured in "interrupt" and not in
> "normal" mode.
So can you explain exactly why userspace want to configure
GPIO pins in interrupt mode, when there is no way whatsoever
for userspace to handle these IRQs?
Yours,
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