[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51652035.5000802@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:17:57 +0300
From: Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio / ACPI: Handle ACPI events in accordance with the
spec
On 04/10/2013 10:53 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:57:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> +void acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
>> +{
>> + acpi_handle handle;
>> + acpi_status status;
>> + struct list_head *evt_pins;
>> + struct acpi_gpio_evt_pin *evt_pin, *ep;
>> +
>> + if (!chip->dev || !chip->to_irq)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + handle = ACPI_HANDLE(chip->dev);
>> + if (!handle)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + status = acpi_get_data(handle, acpi_gpio_evt_dh, (void **)&evt_pins);
>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(evt_pin, ep, evt_pins, node) {
>> + devm_free_irq(chip->dev, evt_pin->irq, evt_pin);
>
> How about using normal request/free_irq() functions for both _EVT and
> non-_EVT events? Since we now need to call acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts()
> anyway, I don't see the point using devm_* functions here.
>
Then we need to create a list of non-_EVT events, or add them to the
evt_pins list.
--
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