Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Fix logic for driver override

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Chris Lesiak <chris.lesiak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/16/2018 08:43 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:

> To correct the record, I see that the comment was actually added to Rabin's
> patch by Linus.

Oh I take the full blame.

>> I disagree. I don't think the core should be overriding anything that
>> the driver has explicitly set up. I don't see why a driver shouldn't be
>> allowed to set up only one of them. What if ->irq_release_resources()
>> doesn't need to do anything for a specific driver? Should the driver be
>> required to provide an empty dummy just so the core doesn't override an
>> implementation of ->irq_request_resources() that the driver specified?
>
> A reasonable argument.

The driver this was added for (ETRAX) is now gone.

I looked around and AFAICT only one other driver actually uses
this facility to override .irq_request/release_resources():
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c

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