On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 03:12:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 2:03 AM Serge Semin > <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:03:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 04:38:55AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: ... > > > > + /* This will let us handle the parent IRQ in the driver */ > > > > + girq->parents = NULL; > > > > + girq->num_parents = 0; > > > > + girq->parent_handler = NULL; > > > > Shan't we do this before request_irq() call (at least for consistency with the > > > rest of the drivers)? > > > > Technically we shan't. Please elaborate which drivers you are referring to? > > All of them? Recent patches for IRQ chip template do something like > > girq = &...; > girq->foo = bar; > ... > ret = request_irq(...); > > ...and here no more girq->baz = gaz; lines. > > > Even the recent Linus' series "Use irqchip template" mostly does it in the > > same order. > > Funny, that's what I;m referring to. It turns out my "mostly" was wrong in this matter. It's 4 out of 17 patches, which make the initialization in the same order as mine: drivers/gpio/gpio-max732x.c drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.c drivers/gpio/gpio-adp5588.c while the rest of them does it in the order suggested by you: drivers/gpio/gpio-pci-idio-16.c drivers/gpio/gpio-pcie-idio-24.c drivers/gpio/gpio-104-idio-16.c drivers/gpio/gpio-104-dio-48e.c drivers/gpio/gpio-ws16c48.c drivers/gpio/gpio-rcar.c drivers/gpio/gpio-wcove.c drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-mcp23s08.c drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-sx150x.c drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-stmfx.c drivers/gpio/gpio-tc3589x.c Then, let's use the same order here as the most of the drivers do just for consistency. -Sergey > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
