[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4497001.LvFx2qVVIh@steina-w>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:09:32 +0100
From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com>
To: andy.shevchenko@...il.com, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gpio: vf610: make irq_chip immutable
Am Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2023, 11:18:06 CET schrieb Linus Walleij:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:52 AM <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:36:38AM +0100, Alexander Stein kirjoitti:
> > > Since recently, the kernel is nagging about mutable irq_chips:
> > > "not an immutable chip, please consider fixing it!"
> > >
> > > Drop the unneeded copy, flag it as IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE, add the new
> > > helper functions and call the appropriate gpiolib functions.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > The overall changes are based on commit f1138dacb7ff
> > > ("gpio: sch: make irq_chip immutable")
> >
> > Nice, but you forgot one crucial detail. You need to mark GPIO resuested
> > whenever it's locked as IRQ and otherwise when unlocked.
>
> +static const struct irq_chip vf610_irqchip = {
> (...)
> + GPIOCHIP_IRQ_RESOURCE_HELPERS,
>
> That's what this macro does ;)
Does this mean the calls to gpiochip_disable_irq/gpiochip_enable_irq in v2/v3
are not necessary?
Best regards,
Alexander
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
--
TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018
Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
http://www.tq-group.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists