[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZZvOdci9Y9p1gJq@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:20:25 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
linux-power <linux-power@...rohmeurope.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: irq_helpers: Allow omitting map_event for
simple IRQs
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:14:02PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 11/18/21 15:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:48:26PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > This isn't the usual pattern, normally we would have the driver assign
> > the helper operation. We can always still do the check based on finding
> > the expected map_event set up.
> So, do you suggest that we export the map_event_simple() as a helper
> which drivers can provide to irq_helpers? If yes, do you think we should
Yes.
> leave out the sanity check regarding the conditions (only one common
> error and only one rdev)? Or should we compare the given map function to
> the adress of the map_event_simple() and perform checks if it matches?
> It looks a bit strange to me. Or did you have some other vision?
I don't really mind either way on the checks, they might help someone
but on the other hand having them based on a check that a particular
helper is used is a bit odd like you say so I wouldn't mind if they
went. I don't really have any other idea for doing them.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists