On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 09:46 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/05/2024 09:41, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -223,6 +268,13 @@ static void exynos_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irqd)
> > > shift = irqd->hwirq * bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC];
> > > mask = (1 << bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC]) - 1;
> > >
> > > + if (clk_enable(bank->drvdata->pclk)) {
> > > + dev_err(bank->gpio_chip.parent,
> > > + "unable to enable clock for deconfiguring pin %s-%lu\n",
> > > + bank->name, irqd->hwirq);
> > > + return;
> >
> > but here we just print an error. I guess that for consistency reasons it
> > would be good to follow up with a patch and change the return types of
> > these methods and return the error too when the clock enable fails.
>
> That's a release, so usually void callback. The true issue is that we
> expect release to always succeed, I think.
>
> This points to issue with this patchset: looks like some patchwork all
> around the places having register accesses. But how do you even expect
> interrupts and pins to work if entire pinctrl block is clock gated?
I was initially thinking the same, but the clock seems to be required for
register access only, interrupts are still being received and triggered
with pclk turned off as per my testing.
Cheers,
Andre'
