wt., 11 gru 2018 o 15:15 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > Hello Bartosz, > > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:09:16PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:40:32PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > @@ -213,7 +213,8 @@ static ssize_t gpio_mockup_event_write(struct file *file, > > > chip = priv->chip; > > > > > > gpiod_set_value_cansleep(desc, val); > > > - irq_sim_fire(&chip->irqsim, priv->offset); > > > + edge = val == 0 ? IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING : IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING; > > > + irq_sim_fire_edge(&chip->irqsim, priv->offset, edge); > > > > If I write 0 twice into the debugfs file, does it fire two irqs or only > > one? I think it fires two but only one would be the right behaviour?! > > If you still think that patch 1 of this series is the way to go, I think > this objection is still valid. Then you need to check the state of the > line by at least calling (something like) .get_value to determine if the > previous value was different. > Hi Uwe, I've already started working on a series improving the entire concept. I've taken some of your suggestions into account. Since we're already at rc-6 I'd like to get those upstream despite there being some disagreements to keep the userspace intact. For now it will generate two falling edge interrupts when you write 0 twice. Bart