On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:33:36PM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:19:16PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 04:39:53PM -0800, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > If an interrupt is already configured as either edge- or > > > level-triggered, setting the corresponding bit for it in the POLARITY_HI > > > register further configures it as rising-edge or level-high triggered > > > (as the case may be), while setting the same bit in POLARITY_LO further > > > configures it as falling-edge or level-low triggered. > > > > I think you probably need to bring these three fields together into a > > single virtual field and then map the values within that field using > > the existing type stuff. > > Sure, how about this scheme then, for patches 2 and 3 in this series? > (Patch 1 will remain the same, pending your review of it.) > > Since I do need to write to two extra registers, I'll need two > register_base's and two buffers to hold their data. This can be > generalized to "extra config registers" in the framework as follows: > > - Add these two fields to `struct regmap_irq_chip`: > > unsigned int *extra_config_base; /* Points to array of extra regs */ > int num_extra_config_regs; /* = ARRAY_SIZE(array above) */ > > - Add this field to `struct regmap_irq_chip_data`: > > unsigned int **extra_config_buf; > /* Will be dynamically allocated to size of: > * [chip->num_extra_config_regs][chip->num_regs] > */ > > - Add a new function callback in `struct regmap_irq_chip`: > > int (*configure_extra_regs)(void *irq_drv_data, unsigned int > type) > > This callback will be called at the end of regmap_irq_set_type(): > > if (d->chip->configure_extra_regs) > d->chip->configure_extra_regs(); > > The callback, defined in the client driver, will specifically address > the changes to regmap_irq_set_type() made in patches 2 and 3 of this > series, viz. overriding how type_buf is to be handled, plus the > populating of polarity_*_buf's (rechristened as extra_config_bufs in > this proposed new scheme). > > This new scheme thus makes v2 more generic. I thought I'd discuss this > with you before implementing it as v3 RFC. Could you please let me know > your thoughts? Typo. I meant: This new scheme thus makes *v3* more generic. I thought I'd discuss this with you before implementing it as *v4* RFC. Guru Das.
