[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkda55gYEnwgLGX-73POCHsQv769ziS6L6oJzHY2coDD0pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 22:48:52 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc: "andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"brgl@...ev.pl" <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Ben Brown <Ben.Brown@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Don't implicitly disable irq when masking
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:36 PM Chris Packham
<Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> I spent yesterday trying to demonstrate the
> problem on a newer kernel. Some teething issues aside I can trigger the
> warning if I have a gpio-button using one of the pca9555 pins as an
> interrupt and then I export some of the other pins via sysfs.
>
> Interestingly the warning isn't triggered if I use a gpio-hog instead of
> exporting the pins.
What happens if you use the gpio character device instead of sysfs?
Like for example with the tools in tools/gpio or using libgpiod
example tools?
> I haven't figured out why that is but I'm assuming
> it's something to do with the hogged pins being excluded from the irq
> domain before it is registered.
If you write something to the "edge" file I can easily see things
going sidewise. The sysfs is really not a nice tool, which is why
it is deprecated.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists