Re: [Device-drivers-devel] [PATCH] i2c: add irq_flags to board info

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23-KWPb1pKIrIJaa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>]

On 10/25/10 01:45, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 03:51:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:33, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> Why do we have set_irq_type() if we're not supposed to call it? I am
>>> not claiming to be an expert in the area, but it seems totally
>>> reasonable to me that the same piece of code instantiating an I2C
>>> device is also responsible for setting its IRQ type.
>>
>> but we're back to the same issue mentioned earlier -- you cant have a
>> single kernel build with modules supporting multiple drivers
>> simultaneously.  we like to ship development boards with a single
>> kernel build on it with many modules.  then people can pick the addon
>> boards they wish to prototype with at runtime by plugging in the card
>> and loading the module.
> 
> I also dislike set_irq_type() as it doesn't check whether there is anyone
> registered with the interrupt, which means that you could set the irq
> type of someone else's irq.
> 
> I wonder if we should pass a struct resource instead, in case there
> are multiple interrupt sources, as well as having it registered with
> the right resource systems.
> 
Either works as far as I am concerned. Having seen a large set of drivers
using the flags option (posted to linux-iio yesterday) I'm definitely convinced
some means of allowing devices to match what the board config asks for is useful.

I personally prefer the struct resource option as I have multiple drivers in IIO
which have two interrupts and this is the only reason some of them use platform
data.

Thanks,

Jonathan