Mark Brown wrote at Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:02 PM:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 05:00:18PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> > + } else {
> > + gpio = irq_to_gpio(irq);
> > + if (gpio_is_valid(gpio)) {
> > + ret = gpio_request(gpio, new->name);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto out_mask;
> > + ret = gpio_direction_input(gpio);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto out_mask;
> > + }
>
> If you treat failures as an error what happens when a driver is using a
> GPIO as both an interrupt and a GPIO? For example a driver which
> monitors the level on a GPIO and uses edge triggered IRQs to be notified
> of state changes.
Well, things break. This is essentially the problem I was describing in
the PATCH 0 email, just with a slightly different motivation.
I suppose that an alternative here would be to simply ignore any errors
from gpio_request. This might have the benefit of removing the need for
the other two patches I posted in the series. However, it seems a little
dirty; one benefit of the IRQ code calling gpio_request and honoring
errors would be to detect when some completely unrelated code had a bug
and had called gpio_request on the GPIO before. Such detection would be
non-existent if we don't error out on gpio_request. Perhaps some mechanism
is needed to indicate that the driver has explicitly already called
gpio_request for a legitimate shared purpose, and only then ignore
errors?
--
nvpublic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
