Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934027Ab3JPL3r (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:29:47 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]:55811 "EHLO mail-ie0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932542Ab3JPL3p (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:29:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20131015134526.GB7461@ab42.lan> References: <20131008122145.GA21985@ab42.lan> <1381235122-23730-3-git-send-email-christian.ruppert@abilis.com> <20131015134526.GB7461@ab42.lan> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:29:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/03] GPIO: Add TB10x GPIO driver From: Linus Walleij To: Christian Ruppert Cc: Stephen Warren , Patrice CHOTARD , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Rob Landley , Sascha Leuenberger , Pierrick Hascoet , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1632 Lines: 37 On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:19:17PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> It's not like I'm 100% certain on where to use one or the other >> construct (a mechanism like the above is needed for threaded >> IRQs I've noticed) but the chained handler seems more to the >> point does it not? >> >> The only downside I've seen is that the parent IRQ does not get >> a name and the accumulated IRQ stats in /proc/interrupts but >> surely we can live without that (or fix it). >> >> Since I'm a bit rusty on chained IRQs correct me if I'm wrong... > > OK, it took me a while to figure this back out again because as far as > I'm familiar with the IRQ framework you're right. The reason I'm not > using irq_set_chained_handler is that we have one driver instance per > GPIO bank and all GPIO banks share the same interrupt line. This means > every driver instance needs its own (different) user data and a simple > call to irq_set_handler_data(tb10x_gpio) won't suffice. I'm not aware of > any mechanism that allows interrupt sharing with the > irq_set_chained_handler() mechanism. OK yes makes perfect sense. We'll live with this then. I didn't see a new version of this patch with the other two, shall I just apply this last version in the pin control tree with the two other patches? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/