On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:17:57AM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 10:53 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:57:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>+void acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip)
> >>+{
> >>+ acpi_handle handle;
> >>+ acpi_status status;
> >>+ struct list_head *evt_pins;
> >>+ struct acpi_gpio_evt_pin *evt_pin, *ep;
> >>+
> >>+ if (!chip->dev || !chip->to_irq)
> >>+ return;
> >>+
> >>+ handle = ACPI_HANDLE(chip->dev);
> >>+ if (!handle)
> >>+ return;
> >>+
> >>+ status = acpi_get_data(handle, acpi_gpio_evt_dh, (void **)&evt_pins);
> >>+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >>+ return;
> >>+
> >>+ list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(evt_pin, ep, evt_pins, node) {
> >>+ devm_free_irq(chip->dev, evt_pin->irq, evt_pin);
> >
> >How about using normal request/free_irq() functions for both _EVT and
> >non-_EVT events? Since we now need to call acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts()
> >anyway, I don't see the point using devm_* functions here.
> >
>
> Then we need to create a list of non-_EVT events, or add them to the
> evt_pins list.
Good point. Maybe we can add them to the evt_pins list and handle the same
way as _EVT (except that we need to call _Exx and _Lxx methods instead of
_EVT)?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
