[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <521D0964.2080209@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:17:40 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Lars Poeschel <larsi@....tu-dresden.de>
CC: poeschel@...onage.de, grant.likely@...aro.org,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, ian.campbell@...rix.com,
galak@...eaurora.org, pawel.moll@....com, tomasz.figa@...il.com,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Balaji T K <balajitk@...com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Jon Hunter <jgchunter@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs
On 08/26/2013 08:07 AM, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>
> Currently the kernel is ambigously treating GPIOs and interrupts
> from a GPIO controller: GPIOs and interrupts are treated as
> orthogonal. This unfortunately makes it unclear how to actually
> retrieve and request a GPIO line or interrupt from a GPIO
> controller in the device tree probe path.
I still think that this patch is the wrong approach. Instead, the logic
should be hooked into gpio_request() and request_irq(). This patch only
addresses DT, and ignores anything else, hence doesn't seem like the
right level of abstraction to plug in, since the issue is not related to DT.
--
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