On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:22 AM Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 13:04, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static void aspeed_gpio_irq_print_chip(struct irq_data *d, struct seq_file *p)
> > +{
> > + const struct aspeed_gpio_bank *bank;
> > + struct aspeed_gpio *gpio;
> > + u32 bit;
> > + int rc, offset;
> > +
> > + rc = irqd_to_aspeed_gpio_data(d, &gpio, &bank, &bit, &offset);
>
> Why do we call this instead of using irq_data_get_irq_chip_data?
Because this is what the other irqchip callbacks do and I do not
dare to do anything inventive or different as I can't really test
the patches.
> Actually, the callback appears to do the same as the default
> implementation, so we could just drop it?
So is chip->name always set to dev_name(dev) if we don't define
it? I had no idea.
I can respon with this change, the optional IRQ should be a separate
patch I think?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
