[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <524089DF.600@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:35:11 -0400
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
CC: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Lars Poeschel <larsi@....tu-dresden.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Balaji T K <balajitk@...com>,
Jon Hunter <jgchunter@...il.com>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gpio/omap: auto-setup a GPIO when used as an IRQ
Javier,
On Monday 23 September 2013 01:07 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk> [130923 10:09]:
>> On 09/23/2013 06:45 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm does this still work for legacy platform data based
>>> drivers that are doing gpio_request() first?
>>>
>>
>> Yes it still work when booting using board files. I tested on my OMAP3 board and
>> it worked in both DT and legacy booting mode.
>
> OK great.
>
>>> And what's the path for clearing things for PM when free_irq()
>>> gets called? It seems that this would leave the GPIO bank
>>> enabled causing a PM regression?
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, I did set bank->mod_usage |= 1 << offset so the bank is enabled if the
>> device goes to suspended and then resumed but I completely forget about the
>> clearing path when the IRQ is freed.
>>
>> Which makes me think that we should probably maintain two usage variables, one
>> for GPIO and another one for IRQ and check both of them on the suspend/resume pm
>> functions.
>
> Yes that it seems that they should be treated separately.
>
As discussed on IRC, the patch as such is fine after the mentioned fixup,
I would like to hear back if Linus W/Grant is fine with the approach. Not sure
if I missed the discussion, but the proposed patch is deviation from
traditional method of doing gpio_request() first up to perform other
gpio operations.
Regards,
Santosh
--
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