Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220511183210.5248-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <20220511183210.5248-5-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <CACRpkdYQAsam_v0XHm-A_trbyifj1pBQq5N+zc9KVw1vXVTYUw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+V-a8v_bCtoipKXyYoHsSku0-AbABi6Wj0RsHrj7_Sk4MUJyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+V-a8v_bCtoipKXyYoHsSku0-AbABi6Wj0RsHrj7_Sk4MUJyg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 15:21:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkda9xiPMa6BBXUNsoJ7SQ9N6t=K422bh0Dh4HUBnotVYxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] gpio: gpiolib: Add ngirq member to struct gpio_irq_chip
To:     "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
Cc:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@renesas.com>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:36 PM Lad, Prabhakar
<prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:

> > As Geert says, I think you can just use .valid_mask for this,
> > what do you say?
> >
> I don't think Geert is suggesting that. The .valid_mask option is one
> time setting but what I need is something dynamic i.e. out of 392 GPIO
> pins any 32 can be used as an interrupt pin.

So why can't this just be determined from the compatible?
This does not sound like a configuration option at all but something
related to the IP block per se, and then you know that if it has
a certain compatible then it has this property.

Yours,
Linus Walleij