[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZmemtVHkdo7f8G4wTHEayk1moHSMHEyvomebPV_h8AHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:13:25 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc: Mun Yew Tham <mun.yew.tham@...el.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>, Alban Bedel <albeu@...e.fr>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
Jay Fang <f.fangjian@...wei.com>,
Daniel Palmer <daniel@...ngy.jp>,
Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
William Breathitt Gray <william.gray@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] gpio: aspeed: Convert to immutable irq_chip
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:22 AM Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 13:04, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> > +static void aspeed_gpio_irq_print_chip(struct irq_data *d, struct seq_file *p)
> > +{
> > + const struct aspeed_gpio_bank *bank;
> > + struct aspeed_gpio *gpio;
> > + u32 bit;
> > + int rc, offset;
> > +
> > + rc = irqd_to_aspeed_gpio_data(d, &gpio, &bank, &bit, &offset);
>
> Why do we call this instead of using irq_data_get_irq_chip_data?
Because this is what the other irqchip callbacks do and I do not
dare to do anything inventive or different as I can't really test
the patches.
> Actually, the callback appears to do the same as the default
> implementation, so we could just drop it?
So is chip->name always set to dev_name(dev) if we don't define
it? I had no idea.
I can respon with this change, the optional IRQ should be a separate
patch I think?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists