On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yufeng Shen wrote: >> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>>> Make the irqflags default to be IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING if no platform data is >>>>>> provided. >>>> >>>> I think if there is no platform data we should use 0 as IRQ falgs and >>>> assume that IRQ line is properly configured by the board code or via >>>> device tree. >>> >>> Benson/Yufeng - do you still have a requirement to probe without platform >>> data or device tree? I'm just merging in some changes to add device tree >>> support, and it would simplify things a bit if I can drop this patch. >> >> It has been working for quite a while for boards/devices that don't >> provide platform data. If we drop the default IRQ flags, sure we can add >> code for each board to configure the IRQ separately, but that's just >> adding extra work. Is there strong reason why we should not do the >> default setting in the driver if it is not already configured in >> platform data? > > OK, I will keep it in my tree for the moment, since you are using it. > > The reason I checked is that in general, I would like to be conservative > about what is pushed upstream, because it will need maintaining for a long > time. > > The other reason is that in fact Atmel recommend IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW for these > chips, not IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING, so there is a bit of an inconsistency here. I think I chose IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING is because when I do a search in the upstream code where platform is configured, the irq is always set to be IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING so I was assuming IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING is a safe bet. But you would definitely know better than me on this since the atmel chips that I have access to are quite limited. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
