On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:19 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:14 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult > <info@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Many gpio drivers already use gpiolib's builtin irqchip handling > > (CONFIG_GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP), but still has some boilerplate for retrieving > > the actual Linux IRQ number and calling into the generic handler. > > That boilerplate can be reduced by moving that into a helper function. > > > > This is an RFC patch to outline how that could be done. Note: it's > > completely untested yet. > > > > Several drivers still have their completely IRQ own implementation and > > thus can't be converted yet. Some of them perhaps could be changed to > > store their irq domain in the struct gpio, so the new helper could > > also be used for those. > > > > Having all GPIO drivers doing their IRQ management entirely through the > > GPIO subsystem (eg. never calling generic_handle_irq() and using the builtin > > IRQ handling) would also allow a more direct (eg. callback-based) pin change > > notification for GPIO consumers, that doesn't involve registering them as > > generic IRQ handlers. > > > > Further reduction of boilerplate could be achieved by additional helpers > > for common patterns like for_each_set_bit() loops on irq masks. > > Have you able to test them all? > As the PCA953x case showed us this is not so simple, besides the name > which sucks — we don't *raise* and IRQ we *handle* it. > > NAK. To be on constructive side what I think can help here: - split patch on per driver basis (and first patch is a simple introduction of new API) - rename function - in each new per-driver patch explain what is the difference in behaviour - test as many as you can and explain in a cover letter what has been done and what are the expectations on the ones that you weren't able to test. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
