[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpom3cikKkwyMGSNu8sE+vTdcuFrMFNghmCHSHYpNMvr+=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:31:49 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: sameo@...ux.intel.com, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
rabin.vincent@...ricsson.com, shiraz.hashim@...com,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
spear-devel@...t.st.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 Resend 2/3] mfd: stmpe: Remove irq_trigger from
platform data
On 29 November 2012 15:04, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>> STMPE can confige
>
> configure?
>
>> the way the device emits interrupts and till now this
>
> until?
Ahh... Will fix them. This happens when you send patches at midnight. :)
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/stmpe.c b/drivers/mfd/stmpe.c
>> ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(ci->dev, stmpe->irq, NULL,
>> - stmpe_irq, pdata->irq_trigger | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> - "stmpe", stmpe);
>> + stmpe_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT, "stmpe", stmpe);
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but you're no longer passing irq_trigger.
>
> Is this intentional? If so, why was it needed before and not now?
Yes, it was intentional. I thought it wasn't required at all. But my mind
is changing a bit now. I feel it is not required for DT, as trigger prop
is already passed in the interrupts cell. But for non-DT user, this is
still required. As there is not other way by which IRQ controller will
come to know what irq trigger type to enable for this irq line.
--
viresh
--
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