On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:29:44PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Christian Ruppert > <christian.ruppert@xxxxxxxxxx> 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? If you don't see anything else which needs changing please do so, yes. Best regards, Christian -- 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
