On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/31/2015 03:48 PM, Rabin Vincent wrote: >> + if (!irqchip->irq_request_resources && >> + !irqchip->irq_release_resources) { >> + irqchip->irq_request_resources = gpiochip_irq_reqres; >> + irqchip->irq_release_resources = gpiochip_irq_relres; >> + } > > I think, it will be better to handle req/rel cases separately. No, I think that could be dangerous. The semantics of the both functions are intertwined, if we change something in the core we may break drivers. It would be better with a mechanism saying "also do this on irq_request/release resource" so a secondary vtable for these two. Where the latter would be optional per-callback. That way the ETRAXFS does not need to reimplement irq locking. I'll see what I can come up with. Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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