On Thursday 22 August 2013 at 22:53:09, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/21/2013 05:27 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday 21 of August 2013 15:38:54 Lars Poeschel wrote: > >>>> To solve this dilemma, perform an interrupt consistency check > >>>> when adding a GPIO chip: if the chip is both gpio-controller and > >>>> interrupt-controller, walk all children of the device tree, > >> > >> It seems a little odd to solve this only for DT. What about the > >> non-DT case? > > > > DT is the hardware configuration system that lets you request > > the same resource in two ways, i.e. it allows one and the same > > node to be both gpio-controller and interrupt-controller, and > > start handing out the same line as both GPIO and IRQ > > independently. > > Huh? What stops systems using board files and platform data from having > this issue? I am not 100% sure, Linus knows better. I think nothing stops them from having this issue, but board files are gentle and request the GPIO before doing gpio_to_irq, because they know that they are using a gpio based interrupt. You can read the whole story here: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg91405.html Things get interesting after the first mail from Alexander Holler, who is the first having a problem with the patch in the link. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
