Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932410AbXHQVb0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:31:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764038AbXHQV3k (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:29:40 -0400 Received: from smtp114.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([68.142.229.91]:30232 "HELO smtp114.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760643AbXHQV3h (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:29:37 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=sV68LzzpbVEJQCJdkzXj9FooPNbH/krwtRf283iAWkrkd3gNYocoIAdac/hKBGBqK/8gDe6CtIBUm6TsjCt9VzYbIj1UjrYVtc2KLgVjM/Qm9aKS5mScZoG9V4EXRyXHETVsTc8G6UTvi+fDL3c06+cL3sBKAGSLgyeAsDtBp9U= ; X-YMail-OSG: sgTm3UwVM1mdDmAyY5cJMBEB8.7WKVAtpWja6x_sbC4Wcc6eyq01lufXn2Xl_uxd4woMIMF9nw-- From: David Brownell To: "Hennerich, Michael" Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] Blackfin arch: Add label to call new GPIO API Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:29:31 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: "Mike Frysinger" , "Bryan Wu" , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <600D5CB4DFD93545BF61FF01473D11AC0D87BDAD@limkexm2.ad.analog.com> In-Reply-To: <600D5CB4DFD93545BF61FF01473D11AC0D87BDAD@limkexm2.ad.analog.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708171429.31971.david-b@pacbell.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1044 Lines: 25 On Friday 17 August 2007, Hennerich, Michael wrote: > What Mike wants to point out is that a external IRQ is first a GPIO and > needs to be configured like an INPUT GPIO and then a specific bit needs > to be set unmask it as IRQ. > > So why not use the GPIO infrastructure to setup this pin as GPIO? My comments about the advantages of using that infrastructure for *early* binding captured the key points ... it's "failfast". For IRQs you're probably on decently firm ground, since it's extremely rare that people not handle request_irq() errors. Remember, I just pointed out that the "late fail" strategy is unusual. That doesn't mean it's wrong ... just it'll be a bit of surprise, some cognitive dissonance to developers picking up a Blackfin project, potentially more error prone. - Dave - 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/