Hello Boris, On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 10:24:39AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 20:37:23 +0100 > Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If not, is udc->caps->irq_single_edge_support boolean acceptable ? > > Do you mean keeping the current approach ? Yes! > If you do, then maybe you can rework a bit the way you detect the GPIO > controller you depends on: instead of linking this information to the > usba compatible string you could link it to the gpio controller > compatible string. > > You can find the gpio controller node thanks to your "vbus-gpio" > property: use the phandle defined in this property to find the gpio > controller node, and once you have the device_node referencing the gpio > controller you can match it with your internal device_id table > (containing 2 entries: one for the at91rm9200 IP and the other for the > at91sam9x5 IP). I have a working PoC for that if this is the chosen solution. > Another solution would be to add an irq_try_set_irq_type function that > would not complain when it fails to set the requested trigger. > > Thomas, I know you did not follow the whole thread, but would you mind > adding this irq_try_set_irq_type function (here is a reference > implementation [1]), to prevent this error trace from happening when > we're just trying a configuration ? This would be great :-) > > If not, I am ok to drop the feature, this is only a bonus. > > That could be a short term solution, to get this series accepted. We > could then find a proper way to support that optimization. I agree, I have the feeling your proposed core change may takes a long time, I just sent a v7 without IRQ single edge support. Sylvain -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
