Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] gpiolib: acpi: Respect bias settings for GpioInt() resource

[Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:31:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> In some cases the GpioInt() resource is coming with bias settings
> which may affect system functioning. Respect bias settings for
> GpioInt() resource by calling acpi_gpio_update_gpiod_*flags() API
> in acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get().
> 
> While at it, refactor to configure flags first and, only when succeeded,
> map the IRQ descriptor.
> 
> Reported-by: Jamie McClymont <jamie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
> This one highly depends on Intel pin control driver changes (for now [1], but
> might be more), so it's probably not supposed to be backported (at least right
> now).
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20201014104638.84043-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
> 
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> index 834a12f3219e..52b961673f16 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> @@ -942,21 +942,25 @@ int acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(struct acpi_device *adev, int index)
>  
>  		if (info.gpioint && idx++ == index) {
>  			unsigned long lflags = GPIO_LOOKUP_FLAGS_DEFAULT;
> +			enum gpiod_flags dflags = info.flags;
>  			char label[32];
>  			int irq;
>  
>  			if (IS_ERR(desc))
>  				return PTR_ERR(desc);
>  
> -			irq = gpiod_to_irq(desc);
> -			if (irq < 0)
> -				return irq;
> +			acpi_gpio_update_gpiod_flags(&dflags, &info);
> +			acpi_gpio_update_gpiod_lookup_flags(&lflags, &info);
>  
>  			snprintf(label, sizeof(label), "GpioInt() %d", index);
> -			ret = gpiod_configure_flags(desc, label, lflags, info.flags);
> +			ret = gpiod_configure_flags(desc, label, lflags, dflags);
>  			if (ret < 0)
>  				return ret;
>  
> +			irq = gpiod_to_irq(desc);
> +			if (irq < 0)
> +				return irq;

Should the above be undone if the conversion here fails?

In any case looks good so,

Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>