Hi JJ,
IIRC this patch was necessary for the DM9000 device, which is not defined
in this series anymore.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's still a discussion about how
this should be fixed properly (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/25/388).
As a result, shouldn't we remove this patch from this series ?
Best Regards,
Boris
Le 03/03/2014 11:05, Jean-Jacques Hiblot a écrit :
During the xlate stage of the DT interrupt parsing, the at91 pinctrl driver
requests the GPIOs that are described as interrupt sources. This prevents a
driver to request the gpio later to get its electrical value.
This patch replaces the gpio_request with a gpio_lock_as_irq to prevent the
gpio to be set as an ouput while allowing a subsequent gpio_request to succeed
Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
index d990e33..db55b96 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
@@ -1478,18 +1478,17 @@ static int at91_gpio_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
{
struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = d->host_data;
int ret;
- int pin = at91_gpio->chip.base + intspec[0];
if (WARN_ON(intsize < 2))
return -EINVAL;
*out_hwirq = intspec[0];
*out_type = intspec[1] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
- ret = gpio_request(pin, ctrlr->full_name);
+ ret = gpio_lock_as_irq(&at91_gpio->chip, intspec[0]);
if (ret)
return ret;
- ret = gpio_direction_input(pin);
+ ret = at91_gpio_direction_input(&at91_gpio->chip, intspec[0]);
if (ret)
return ret;
--
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
