[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1591685.mRlCV6MZRs@wuerfel>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 21:11:59 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: cottula: add cottula board
On Saturday 20 December 2014 10:43:48 Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr> writes:
> > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> >> This looks a bit ambiguous: You get a GPIO line for the purpose of the
> >> IRQ nesting but don't use the GPIO otherwise, and you pass the device's
> >> own irq domain start as an IORESOURCE_IRQ resource.
> >>
> >> For consistency between DT and ATAGS based uses, and with similar DT
> >> based drivers, I would instead recommend passing the parent irq (from
> >> the GPIO) as an IORESOURCE_IRQ resource instead of a gpio lookup,
> >> and passing the base_irq as platform_data for the ATAGS case.
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
> I thought again about the GPIO.
>
> I put in the "gpiod_get()" call to ensure proper ordering between the gpio
> probing and this driver probing. It ensured that this driver's probe will be
> defered until the gpio driver is probed, which is the main purpose of this
> patch (commit message).
>
> If I pass an irq from the machine code, I loose this guarantee, don't I ?
Not sure, my guess is that it could still work the same way because
the irq is not registered yet and request_irq or similar will fail.
Arnd
--
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