[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603105710.GF1730@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 13:57:10 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
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)
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:10:13AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking that could we solve this so that we call
> > acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts() at the end of gpiochip_irqchip_add()
> > and convert both pinctrl-baytrail and gpio-lynxpoint to use
> > gpiochip_irqchip_add()?
>
> Yes that seems like a great way to solve it actually.
>
> Is someone able to do this refactoring?
I have both Haswell and Baytrail hardware here so I can take a look if I
have time.
> I don't know if you have a case of an ACPI-based GPIO controller
> that is *not* supplying interrupts? Because in that case this
> would even be required for the thing to work, right?
Both Haswell and Baytrail support interrupts but only the later provides
ACPI events as far as I can tell.
--
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