[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53875A4B.2060604@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:03:23 +0300
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
"Zhu, Lejun" <lejun.zhu@...ux.intel.com>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, <bin.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gpio: Add support for Intel SoC PMIC (Crystal Cove)
Hi All,
On 05/29/2014 06:00 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 03:37:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> My idea is that you should call gpiochip_add() *first* and then
>> add the IRQs to the chip. In succession.
>>
>> Rationale: with dynamic GPIO numbers, gpio_to_irq()
>> cannot reasonably be working before the gpiochip is added,
>> so it should be added first, then the irqchip. Since irq_to_gpio()
>> is *NOT* to be used (rather obliterated), this is the sequence
>> we mandate.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.
>
Thanks a lot Linus for your comments here :)
Also, I'd like to note that GPIO IRQs can be accessible not only
when GPIO chips is added, but also when IRQ domain is registered
(at least it's valid for DT cases). In these cases gpiod_to_irq()
might be not used at all.
Regards,
-grygorii
--
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