On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:33:34PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > Ok, that allays my fear w.r.t. ordering of the resources. > > As I see it, the fact that we convert GpioInt entries to GPIOs rather > than irqs when parsing _CRS is the issue here, and to me it makes no > sense that we do so. Were we to treat them as interrupts, the binding is > fine as-is, and we'd do the same thing in DT and ACPI. > > The reason GpioInt is separate from GpioIo is that a GpioInt _is_ an > interrupt (which happens to be backed by a GPIO), and is not something > that necessarily makes sense as a GPIO. I would rather say that GpioInt *is* a GPIO. That can then used as an interrupt but it should not prevent you from using it as GPIO instead. For example if you just want to poll that something is 0 or 1. That should be possible as well and nothing say that you cannot do that for GpioInt(). > So why do we currently ignore the GpioInt/GpioIo distinction and treat > GpioInts as GPIOs rather than interrupts? See above. -- 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
