On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 08:53:34PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > Well, things break. This is essentially the problem I was describing in > the PATCH 0 email, just with a slightly different motivation. There's a bunch of existing code using that idiom. > 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? But it's not a bug to use a GPIO as an IRQ source, otherwise we wouldn't have gpio_to_irq() in the first place. Feels like we need a backchannel between gpiolib and the IRQ code to do this. Or perhaps the drivers that implement this should be taking care of setting up the GPIO mode? -- 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
