On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/20/17 6:43 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> Doesn't that mean we need something like irq_valid_mask but rather >> gpio_valid_mask that just block all usage of certain GPIOs? > > > That raises a lot of questions. In the meantime, my current patches for > 4.14 work fine. > > Do we replace irq_valid_mask with gpio_valid_mask? That would break drivers > where the GPIO is valid but the interrupt is not. If we keep both, what > happens if gpio_valid_mask is false but irq_valid_mask is true? And then we > would need to audit all gpio drivers to see which ones should be updated for > the new infrastructure. I guess gpio_valid_mask would take precedence over irq_valid_mask. I.e if the GPIO is not valid then the IRQ is per definition not valid either. Since it is a new thing, we can simply define a semantic like that and document it. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
