On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:18 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/18/21 2:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 02:13:50PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
> >> More in general I'm not aware of any (recent-ish) x86 GPIO controllers
> >> not being able to do active low interrupts. In theory we could hit this
> >> code path on ARM devices using ACPI enumeration, but I don't think it
> >> is likely we will see a combination of ARM + ACPI enumeration +
> >> WM5102 + GPIO controller not capable of active-low interrupts.
> >
> > I've not seen this issue on any ARM based systems.
> >
> >> This overriding of the flags definitely is necessary on the Lenovo
> >> devices in question. I could add a
> >> "if (dmi_name_in_vendors("LENOVO"))" guard around it, but that
> >> seems unnecessary.
> >
> > Possibly just an update to the comment to make it clear that some
> > firmwares might legitimately set the flag?
>
> Ok, I've extended the comment above the override of the irq-flags with
> the following paragraph for v4 of this patch-set:
>
> * Note theoretically it is possible that some boards are not capable
> * of handling active low level interrupts. In that case setting the
> * flag to IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING would not be a bug (and we would need
> * to work around this) but sofar all known usages of IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING
so far
> * are a bug in the boards DSDT.
board's
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
