[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb63AZtEOSJ0R+EqdHfKXcUr7Hs8fh9N5XHNcWjQ1Ba8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:26:28 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, charles.chenxin@...wei.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] gpio: dwapb: add gpio-signaled acpi event support
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:08 AM, qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com> wrote:
> This patch adds gpio-signaled acpi event support. It is used for
> power button on hisilicon D02 board, an arm64 platform.
>
> The corresponding DSDT file is defined as follows:
> Device(GPI0) {
> Name(_HID, "HISI0181")
> Name(_ADR, 0)
> Name(_UID, 0)
>
> Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () {
> Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, 0x802e0000, 0x10000)
> Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh,
> Exclusive,,,) {344}
> })
>
> Device(PRTa) {
> Name (_DSD, Package () {
> Package () {
> Package () {"reg",0},
> Package () {"snps,nr-gpios",32},
> }
> })
> }
>
> Name (_AEI, ResourceTemplate () {
> GpioInt(Edge, ActiveLow, ExclusiveAndWake,
> PullUp, , " \\_SB.GPI0") {8}
> })
>
> Method (_E08, 0x0, NotSerialized) {
> Notify (\_SB.PWRB, 0x80)
> }
> }
>
> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: qiujiang <qiujiang@...wei.com>
Admittedly I'm an ACPI novice and need help with deciding
about ACPI, but I mostly trust Mika to know these things right.
About this:
> + /* Add GPIO-signaled ACPI event support */
> + if (pp->irq)
> + acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(&port->gc);
It's weird to me that the driver already has a requested IRQ and
everything, now it has to request it again from ACPI.
When I look into the acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts()
I find it weird that it is void given how much can go wrong
inside it. Should it not return an errorcode?
> + if (has_acpi_companion(dev) && pp->idx == 0)
> + pp->irq = platform_get_irq(to_platform_device(dev), 0);
As it was already fetched here and then later requested,
we still have to call acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts()
further down the road? That is confusing to me, can you
explain what is going on?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists