Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] iio: proximity: sx9500: Assign interrupt from GpioIo()

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:03:36 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The commit 0f0796509c07
>>
>> ("iio: remove gpio interrupt probing from drivers that use a single
>> interrupt")
>>
>> removed custom IRQ assignment for the drivers which are enumerated via
>> ACPI or OF. Unfortunately, some ACPI tables have IRQ line defined as
>> GpioIo() resource and thus automatic IRQ allocation will fail.
>
> I'll ask the obvious question - is this allowed under the ACPI spec?
>
>>
>> Partially revert the commit 0f0796509c07 to restore original
>> behaviour.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I really don't like scattering fixes for broken ACPI tables through
> drivers...  Is there really no better solution to this?
>
> On patches like this best to pull in ACPI and GPIO on the cc list.
>
> Also cc'd Mika who made the original change to support gpioint.

Andy and Mika are the maintainers of ACPI GPIO, I have only
superficial knowledge of how that actually works. But it's good if
Mika can look at it too.

The only thing that I know for sure about ACPI GPIO is the same
as always : the people who devised it think that they are releaving
the OS authors of a burden by taking stuff over, and end up
creating more work for us since they make mistakes and
deploy them in firmware that "cannot be fixed".

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