[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181217111945.sirtdt2a3h34rect@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:19:45 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq/irq_sim: provide irq_sim_fire_edge()
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:07:37PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:19:54PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> > > > The iio testing driver only needs the trigger and relies on an irq that
> > > > then calls the registerd handler. The iio driver doesn't need to tune
> > > > the edge sensitivity though and if your mockup driver just only calls
> > > > the fire routine if the configured sensitivity justifies that,
> > > > everything should work as expected.
> > >
> > > Simulating edges in the generic IRQ simulator codes seems
> > > generally useful to me, even if there is just one user now.
> >
> > I cannot imagine another potential user. Which kind of driver could use
> > that that is not a gpio simulator?
>
> I suppose anything that can generate an IRQ and wants to generate
> some test IRQs where edge matters, drivers/irqchips/?
Should the irqchip be the consumer or the provider of the irq? I would
have said the provider as it is an irqchip. What would be the gain of
such an irq chip as all users could use a (flexible enough) gpio
simulator instead?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists