On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> > From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Some devices have configurable IRQ output polarities. Software might
> > use IRQ_TYPE_* to determine how to configure such a device's IRQ
> > output polarity in order to match how the IRQ controller input is
> > configured. If the board or SoC inverts the signal between the
> > device's IRQ output and controller's IRQ output, software must be
> > aware of this fact, in order to program the IRQ output to the correct
> > (i.e. opposite) polarity. This flag provides that information.
>
> So what you're saying is:
>
> Device IRQ output --> [Optional Inverter Logic] --> IRQ controller input.
>
> And you're storing the information about the presence of the inverter
> logic in the irq itself, but the core does not make any use of it and
> you let the device driver deal with the outcome.
>
> This sucks as all affected drivers have to implement the same sanity
> logic for this.
>
> Why don't you implement a core function which tells the driver which
> polarity to select? That requires a few more changes, but I think it's
> worth it for other reasons.
>
> Right now the set_type logic requires the irq chip drivers to
> implement sanity checking and default selections for TYPE_NONE. We can
> be more clever about that and add this information to the irq chip
> flags.
>
> enum {
> IRQ_CHIP_TYPES_MASK = 0x0f,
> IRQ_CHIP_DEFAULT_MASK = 0xf0,
> IRQ_CHIP_EXISTING_FLAGS ....
> }
We need to extend the mask to indicate whether the chip supports
BOTH_EDGES. A chip can support FALLING and RISING, but not both at the
same time. For the set_type side the current BOTH = FALLING | RISING
is fine, but for checking the supported type it's not sufficient.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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
