On 02/05/2024 09:41, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>
>> @@ -223,6 +268,13 @@ static void exynos_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irqd)
>> shift = irqd->hwirq * bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC];
>> mask = (1 << bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC]) - 1;
>>
>> + if (clk_enable(bank->drvdata->pclk)) {
>> + dev_err(bank->gpio_chip.parent,
>> + "unable to enable clock for deconfiguring pin %s-%lu\n",
>> + bank->name, irqd->hwirq);
>> + return;
>
> but here we just print an error. I guess that for consistency reasons it
> would be good to follow up with a patch and change the return types of
> these methods and return the error too when the clock enable fails.
That's a release, so usually void callback. The true issue is that we
expect release to always succeed, I think.
This points to issue with this patchset: looks like some patchwork all
around the places having register accesses. But how do you even expect
interrupts and pins to work if entire pinctrl block is clock gated?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
