On 03/02/2013 02:05 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:01:22 -0600, Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>>> Are you requesting the gpio anywhere? If not then this is not going to >>>> work as-is. This was discussed fairly recently [1] and the conclusion >>>> was that the gpio needs to be requested before we can use as an interrupt. >>> >>> That seems wrong; the GPIO/IRQ driver should handle this internally. The >>> Ethernet driver shouldn't know/care whether the interrupt it's given is >>> some form of dedicated interrupt or a GPIO-based interrupt, and even if >>> it somehow did, there's no irq_to_gpio() any more, so the driver can't >>> tell which GPIO ID it should request, unless it's given yet another >>> property to represent this. >> >> I agree that ideally this should be handled internally. Did you read the >> discussion on the thread that I referenced [1]? If you have any thoughts >> we are open to ideas :-) > > I'm on an airplane right now, but I agree 100% with Stephen. I'll try to > remember to go read that thread and respond, but this falls firmly in > the its-a-bug category for me. :-) Grant, did you have chance to review the thread [1]? I am trying to figure out if we should just take the original patch proposed in the thread (although Linus had some objections) or look at alternative solutions such as adding a irq_chip request as Stephen suggested. Cheers Jon [1] comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/92192 -- 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
