lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/03] GPIO: Add TB10x GPIO driver
    From
    On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Christian Ruppert
    <christian.ruppert@abilis.com> wrote:
    > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:19:17PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

    >> It's not like I'm 100% certain on where to use one or the other
    >> construct (a mechanism like the above is needed for threaded
    >> IRQs I've noticed) but the chained handler seems more to the
    >> point does it not?
    >>
    >> The only downside I've seen is that the parent IRQ does not get
    >> a name and the accumulated IRQ stats in /proc/interrupts but
    >> surely we can live without that (or fix it).
    >>
    >> Since I'm a bit rusty on chained IRQs correct me if I'm wrong...
    >
    > OK, it took me a while to figure this back out again because as far as
    > I'm familiar with the IRQ framework you're right. The reason I'm not
    > using irq_set_chained_handler is that we have one driver instance per
    > GPIO bank and all GPIO banks share the same interrupt line. This means
    > every driver instance needs its own (different) user data and a simple
    > call to irq_set_handler_data(tb10x_gpio) won't suffice. I'm not aware of
    > any mechanism that allows interrupt sharing with the
    > irq_set_chained_handler() mechanism.

    OK yes makes perfect sense. We'll live with this then.

    I didn't see a new version of this patch with the other two, shall
    I just apply this last version in the pin control tree with the
    two other patches?

    Yours,
    Linus Walleij


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-10-16 14:01    [W:2.688 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site