On 04/23/2014 08:01 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas > <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Linus, what do you think of the following patch? >> >> From ede333e85e0320d32e8c2d123560808ed7e43ece Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:13:54 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] gpio: don't call irq_set_irq_type() on IRQ domain map >> function > (...) > > So no setting a default type in the mapping function... > >> - irq_set_irq_type(irq, chip->irq_default_type); > > But there are drivers exploiting this to set up the hardware to some > default state :-( > > What about this: > > if (chip->irq_default_type != IRQ_TYPE_NONE) > irq_set_irq_type(irq, chip->irq_default_type); > > This way you can pass IRQ_TYPE_NONE and nothing happens in > the mapping. What if these drivers depend on IRQ_TYPE_NONE to do something for the GPIO pins? would you expect these drivers to pass IRQ_TYPE_DEFAULT? OR I wonder if we could pass some flag like -1 for platforms that dont care? -- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
