On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 09:44:34AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Mika Westerberg > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This has few problems that I have not yet figured out. Maybe someone > > here can suggest what to do: > > > > 1) Who is responsible in releasing the GPIO? > > 2) What if the driver wants to use that pin as a GPIO instead? The GPIO > > is already requested by the I2C core. > > In the DT usecase we actually specify that in the DTS file > so we don't have the problem. Either the consumer accesses > the irqchip API with: > > interrupts = <nn nn>; > > or it accesses the GPIO API with: > > gpios = <nn nn>; OK, I see. > so in that sense it is clear what is requested. Then the core > of course uses gpiochip_lock/unlock_as_irq() to handle the > case where bugs make a collision (like if both were specified > and both APIs tries to access the same resource). Where in the core code gpiochip_lock/unlock_as_irq() is called for these? At least of_irq_get() doesn't seem to be doing that. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong place. > But as long as the DTS file is consistent there is no problem. > > So it seems the ACPI tables are lacking this semantic > information? I think the GpioIo/GpioInt separation serves the same purpose. Of course both refer to GPIO controller instead of interrupt controller. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
