Hi Linus, On jeu., mars 23 2017, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I switched to the use of GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP however it didn't really simplify >> my code, during the development on the v2 I did a commit only for this >> change and here it is the diffstat: >> 110 72 drivers/pinctrl/mvebu/pinctrl-armada-37xx.c >> >> In my first version I used the generic irqchip so I was able to benefit >> of this framework, by switching to GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP I had to implement >> again some of the functions such as .mask, .unmask an ack. > > I still think this is better, so thanks. Yes, I understand that from the point of view of the gpio subsystem it is better to share as code as possible between the driver. > > If you have ideas of how we could combine generic irqchip with > GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP in an efficient manner, I'd be happy to hear > about it? I want gpiolib core to be involved setting things like > the .irq_request/release_resources() for example, so if you > would proceed with this solution, I would have had you add those > duplicating the gpiolib helpers instead. Indeed it could be interesting to be able to combine both, however it does not seem an easy task: at first sight both subsystem would need to be modified. It is obviously beyond the scope of this driver, but I will try to have a look on it to see what I could propose in a separate series. Gregory > > Yours, > Linus Walleij -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- 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