From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gpio: Add support for Intel SoC PMIC (Crystal Cove)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:25:03 +0300
Message-ID: <20140530082503.GA1645@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <1400810423-14067-1-git-send-email-lejun.zhu@linux.intel.com>
 <CAAVeFu+F=nHDCpL6Vfmq26QNr74mfRD5p9at_osB3R97v7xBSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <538459E8.6010701@ti.com>
 <20140527084615.GC1801@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <53847F39.2010503@ti.com>
 <CACRpkdbe1=Yt3UDm9f4ZmZ+K2ZB9nVL+RNr7eU_TbnK-CmNY+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140529150058.GB6263@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <53875A4B.2060604@ti.com>
 <CACRpkdZk9hFUZCoWci15EGFsJ7gOWNyFH13gJjHB9EcQT4ONRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:18399 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751782AbaE3IZJ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 30 May 2014 04:25:09 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZk9hFUZCoWci15EGFsJ7gOWNyFH13gJjHB9EcQT4ONRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>, "Zhu, Lejun" <lejun.zhu@linux.intel.com>, Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>, "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, bin.yang@intel.com

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:22:05PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
> 
> > Also, I'd like to note that GPIO IRQs can be accessible not only
> > when GPIO chips is added, but also when IRQ domain is registered
> > (at least it's valid for DT cases). In these cases gpiod_to_irq()
> > might be not used at all.
> 
> Yes. We concluded some time back that gpio_chip:s and
> irq_chip:s are orthogonal abstractions: you should be able
> to use one of them without paying any respect to the other.
> 
> We only added the ability to flag GPIO lines as used for
> IRQs so they would not be set to output by mistake...
> (Straightening up the semantics.)
> 
> The only real semantic dependence that really makes sense
> is .to_irq() which leads to this semantic registration ordering.

acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts() depends on ->to_irq() to be set
before acpi_gpiochip_add() is called. Since the ordering changes this
won't work anymore.

I'm thinking that could we solve this so that we call
acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts() at the end of gpiochip_irqchip_add()
and convert both pinctrl-baytrail and gpio-lynxpoint to use
gpiochip_irqchip_add()?