On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 29/01/16 04:28, Quan Nguyen wrote:
>> +static void xgene_gpio_sb_domain_deactivate(struct irq_domain *d,
>> + struct irq_data *irq_data)
>> +{
>> + struct xgene_gpio_sb *priv = d->host_data;
>> + u32 gpio = HWIRQ_TO_GPIO(priv, irq_data->hwirq);
>> +
>> + gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(&priv->gc, gpio);
>
> Is it right to do the unlock both in irq_shutdown and domain_deactivate?
> This seems a bit odd to me to have such an inbalance. My hunch is that
> you should either implement irq_startup, do the locking there and drop
> the unlock drop deactivate, or kill irq_shutdown.
>
> Linus, what do you think?
Those functions should be called in .irq_alloc/release_resources(), that is
why Gleixner added those callbacks in the first place.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
