On Mon 27 Aug 18:46 PDT 2018, Lina Iyer wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27 2018 at 18:26 -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Mon 27 Aug 09:56 PDT 2018, Lina Iyer wrote: [..] > > > Thanks, I will look into Hans's RFCv2. But what would help me would be > > > to avoid creating the IRQ for the GPIO itself (I have the latent IRQ), > > > if I could just return that instead in gpio_to_irq(), it might be > > > easier. I understand ->to_irq() is supposed to be a translate function > > > only, I can avoid the dance of enabling and diabling the PDC IRQ on > > > suspend and resume. > > > > > > > I did implement gpio_to_irq() like this in the PMIC gpio/mpp drivers and > > we've since concluded that we need to move this to some hierarchical > > interrupt controller, because people like Linus expect to be able to say > > > > interrupts = <&gpio_controller 1 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING> > > > > which is something used all over the place with the TLMM driver today. > > Does it have to be &gpio_controller, can it be another interrupt controller? > > Say, > interrupts-extended = <&pdc 1 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; > It would require that the GPIO interrupt number space of the PDC matches the pin numbering of the TLMM, to be somewhat maintainable. And it would still require DT-writers to know that if the implementation of a compatible, that references a TLMM IRQ, wants to mark the IRQ wake capable it needs to reference the PDC instead...while still having a pinmux/pinconf setting for the TLMM. And for gpio_to_irq() we would need to do the mapping that you suggest, so the TLMM still needs to have all these references to the PDC. So I think it would be nice if we could avoid this scenario, but I don't have any good ideas of how to do this right now... Regards, Bjorn
