On 04/11/2013 04:16 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > >>> So the only reason I'm rambing on about this is that it breaks the >> >> I'm not sure I understand this paragraph; what is "it" in the line above. >> >> If "it" is this patch, then should "breaks" be re-establishes? > > No I'm replying to Javier Martinez Canillas mail in this thread: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=136334655902407&w=2 > which is stating a question to grand, and contains the below > hunk: > >> +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"); >> +} > > irq_to_gpio(). Notice that. not my_funny_driver_irq_to_gpio(). > > It's the same thing you mention below: > >> If I recall the patch I'm replying to correctly, the idea was to add an >> "IRQ request" operation that would (internally to the GPIO/IRQ driver >> itself) map IRQ->GPIO, and call gpio_request(). That would then prevent >> exactly the situation you mention above. OK, right. sorry for being so confused/confusing. Yes, that code should certainly call e.g. omap_gpio__irq_to_gpio() not irq_to_gpio(). Probably gpio_irq_request() wants renaming to something more like omap_gpio__irq_request() too, so the names don't look like they'd clash with global functions. (__ added for clarity but probably only one _ at a time) -- 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
