On 03/22/2013 02:10 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <martinez.javier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> index 159f5c5..f5feb43 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> @@ -807,6 +807,13 @@ static void gpio_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> +static int gpio_irq_request(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + struct gpio_bank *bank = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +
>> + return gpio_request(irq_to_gpio(bank, d->irq), "gpio-irq");
>> +}
>> +
>> static struct irq_chip gpio_irq_chip = {
>> .name = "GPIO",
>> .irq_shutdown = gpio_irq_shutdown,
>> @@ -815,6 +822,7 @@ static struct irq_chip gpio_irq_chip = {
>> .irq_unmask = gpio_unmask_irq,
>> .irq_set_type = gpio_irq_type,
>> .irq_set_wake = gpio_wake_enable,
>> + .irq_request = gpio_irq_request,
>> };
>
> This is just turning everything on it's head. The normal order of things
> is this sequence for GPIO 14 something like:
>
> gpio_request(14);
> int irq = gpio_to_irq(14);
> request_any_context_irq(irq);
That doesn't make any sense at all. Drivers don't want to care whether
the IRQ number they receive is a GPIO-that-can-act-like-an-IRQ or a pure
dedicated IRQ input.
To fully support the model you proprose, a driver would have to:
if (gpio_is_valid(pdata->gpio)) {
gpio_request_one(pdata->gpio, GPIOF_IN, "foo irq");
irq = gpio_to_irq(pdata->gpio);
} else
irq = pdata->irq;
request_irq(...);
which means complex code in each driver, plus requiring some indication
in platform data and/or device tree re: whether the IRQ is hosted by a
GPIO or not.
--
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
