Hi Linus, On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 8:47 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 10:27 AM Lad, Prabhakar > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 9:11 AM claudiu beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > All these ports are hogs to configure them as input. Removing the hog > > > property make this patch work but I'm not sure this is the right approach > > > (see below diff). > > > > > I have dropped a query [0] to GPIO maintainers to check on the correct approach. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+V-a8vxUjTWccV-wLgy5CJiFYfEMsx-f+8weCJDP6uD_dh4AA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Yeah I replied, the callbacks in struct irq_chip rzg2l_gpio_irqchip > should be calling the following callbacks: > Sorry I wanted to do some poc before I responded to your email. > /* lock/unlock as IRQ */ > int gpiochip_lock_as_irq(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset); > void gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset); > > In its > .irq_request_resources and .irq_release_resources callbacks. > > And it currently doesn't even define these callbacks. > > If the driver was using the GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP and adding the > irqchip in the standard way along with the gpiochip, this would > not be a problem. > > Can you look into simply using GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP like most > other drivers as well? > Thanks for the pointers, I'll investigate and add support for it. Cheers, Prabhakar
