On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 2:46 PM Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sharing the same irqchip with multiple gpiochips is not a good > practice. For instance, when installing hooks, we change the state > of the irqchip. The initial state of the irqchip for the second > gpiochip to register is then disrupted. > > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Patch applied. Yours, Linus Walleij
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: don't use the same irqchip with multiple gpiochips
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: don't use the same irqchip with multiple gpiochips
- From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:59:47 +0200
- In-reply-to: <20180913124213.32065-1-ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>
- References: <20180913124213.32065-1-ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>
- References:
- [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: don't use the same irqchip with multiple gpiochips
- From: Ludovic Desroches
- [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: don't use the same irqchip with multiple gpiochips
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: fix freeing of descriptors on error
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] gpio: omap: Remove custom PM calls and use cpu_pm instead
- Previous by thread: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: don't use the same irqchip with multiple gpiochips
- Next by thread: [gpio:gpio-driver-h 66/66] drivers/gpio/gpiolib-sysfs.c:448:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'gpio_is_valid'; did you mean 'pin_is_valid'?
- Index(es):
 |