Hi,
On 1/20/21 8:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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
>
Thank you for the quick review, I've fixed both spelling errors for the upcoming v4.
Regards,
Hans
