On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/21/17 7:08 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> 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. > > So what about my current patches? I am waiting for the maintainer, Bjorn Andersson, to provide review. > I hope you're not asking me to rewrite > them again. I don't understand your remark. If you are impatient, such is life. What is your response to Stephen's comment: > [Stephen Boyd] > Perhaps we can add another hook for our purposes here that > tells gpiolib that the gpio is not usable and to skip it. The > semantics would be clear, it's just about probing availability of > this pin as a gpio and doesn't mux any pins. I think this kind of related to my response (after I realized it was not just about IRQs): > Doesn't that mean we need something like irq_valid_mask but rather > gpio_valid_mask that just block all usage of certain GPIOs? 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
