On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:18:29PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > With level triggered interrupt mask / unmask will get called for each > > interrupt, doing the somewhat expensive mux setting on each unmask thus is > > not a good idea. Instead move it to the set_type callback, which is typically > > done only once for each irq. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Yes move it out of mask/unmask but no, not into set_type(). > > Can you not use the irqchip startup()/shutdown() callbacks > instead? I think we can use irq_request_resources then https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/12/307 We could even merge the gpio_to_irq code into it. It's called in __setup_irq, so it's guaranteed to be called, and it will bail out early without doing anything, since it's one of the first thing __setup_irq does. > And how come we have no clean separation between gpiochip > and the pinmux parts here, why cant we just call > pinctrl_request_gpio() and pinctrl_free_gpio() here instead? > Or maybe pinctrl_gpio_direction_input() and have that set > up the muxing in the pinctrl driver side? Because the function it has to be muxed to is neither gpio_in or gpio_out, and it's not even considered a gpio. It really is just another muxing function, like i2c or mmc. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
