On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:22 AM Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 13:04, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +static void aspeed_gpio_irq_print_chip(struct irq_data *d, struct seq_file *p) > > +{ > > + const struct aspeed_gpio_bank *bank; > > + struct aspeed_gpio *gpio; > > + u32 bit; > > + int rc, offset; > > + > > + rc = irqd_to_aspeed_gpio_data(d, &gpio, &bank, &bit, &offset); > > Why do we call this instead of using irq_data_get_irq_chip_data? Because this is what the other irqchip callbacks do and I do not dare to do anything inventive or different as I can't really test the patches. > Actually, the callback appears to do the same as the default > implementation, so we could just drop it? So is chip->name always set to dev_name(dev) if we don't define it? I had no idea. I can respon with this change, the optional IRQ should be a separate patch I think? Yours, Linus Walleij