[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZpEh=Z89M3SPxNzstUYqB8BpzL_PMgRiPQN2C+WFq5KA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:20:42 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Cc: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
John Linn <linnj@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: zynq: Implement irq_(request|release)_resources
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Grygorii Strashko
<grygorii.strashko@...com> wrote:
> [Me]
>> Do you mean that these functions contain calls to non-atomic
>> functions?
>>
>
> Oh. No, I have to be more specific :(
> if GPIOx driver defines custom .irq_(request|release)_resources() callbacks
> they will *overwrite* standard GPIOirqchip callbacks.
> (commit: 8b67a1f "gpio: don't override irq_*_resources() callbacks")
>
> As result, such GPIOx driver should *re-implement* the same functionality in
> its .irq_(request|release)_resources() callbacks as implemented in
> gpiochip_irq_reqres()/gpiochip_irq_relres().
Yes that goes for all drivers not using gpiochip_add_irqchip().
Not everyone uses that ... and for those supplying their own
implementations of these functions.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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