Re: [PATCH 03/03] GPIO: Add TB10x GPIO driver

[Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@abilis.com>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:29:44PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Christian Ruppert
> <christian.ruppert@abilis.com> 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?

If you don't see anything else which needs changing please do so, yes.

Best regards,
  Christian