Re: [PATCH v4] gpio: Add support for Intel SoC PMIC (Crystal Cove)

[Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx>]

Hi Mika,

On 05/27/2014 11:46 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:24:56PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (retval) {
>>>> +               dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "request irq failed: %d\n", retval);
>>>> +               goto out;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>> +       retval = gpiochip_add(&cg->chip);
>>>> +       if (retval) {
>>>> +               dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "add gpio chip error: %d\n", retval);
>>>> +               goto out_free_irq;
>>>> +       }
>>
>> As to my mind, It'll be better to setup IRQ as last probing step and
>> free it as the first step of driver removing.
> 
> When gpiochip_add() is called the chip is exported to outside world. At
> that point anyone can start requesting GPIOs and setup GPIO based
> interrupts. How does that work if you setup the IRQ after you call
> gpiochip_add()?
> 

It's difficult for me to imagine case when GPIO will be accessed
until GPIO driver's probe is finished.

Regarding remove()/suspend() routines, It's like an axiom for me:
- always disable irq
- always stop all works/threads created by driver
- do everything else
(It's proved by dozens hours of debugging).

Anyway, above is just my opinion :)
So, It's up to you, because it's your code :)

Also FYI, I did fast analysis of GPIO drivers - funny statistic below:
- 16 drivers setup IRQs BEFORE calling gpiochip_add();
- 22 drivers setup IRQs AFTER calling gpiochip_add();

Best regards,
-grygorii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html