On 2014-09-05 13:50:06 [+0200], Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 05 September 2014 07:53:16 Weike Chen wrote:
> >
> > - irq_set_chained_handler(irq, dwapb_irq_handler);
> > - irq_set_handler_data(irq, gpio);
> > + if (!pp->irq_shared) {
> > + irq_set_chained_handler(pp->irq, dwapb_irq_handler);
> > + irq_set_handler_data(pp->irq, gpio);
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * Request a shared IRQ since where MFD would have devices
> > + * using the same irq pin
> > + */
> > + err = devm_request_irq(gpio->dev, pp->irq,
> > + dwapb_irq_handler_mfd,
> > + IRQF_SHARED, "gpio-dwapb-mfd", gpio);
> > + if (err) {
> > + dev_err(gpio->dev, "error requesting IRQ\n");
> > + irq_domain_remove(gpio->domain);
> > + gpio->domain = NULL;
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
>
> I think this need some better documentation. Why is it safe to use
> devm_request_irq rather than irq_set_chained_handler here?
Usually it is preferred to use irq_set_chained_handler() for the chained
handler so the handler does not show up in /proc/interrupts.
This requires an exclusive non-shared handler which is not the case on
the intel platform. So they have to use devm_request_irq() instead.
Sebastian
--
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
