Re: [PATCH 3/5] gpio/omap: Add DT support to GPIO driver

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 04/11/2013 04:16 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 04/10/2013 03:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
>>> So the only reason I'm rambing on about this is that it breaks the
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand this paragraph; what is "it" in the line above.
>>
>> If "it" is this patch, then should "breaks" be re-establishes?
> 
> No I'm replying to Javier Martinez Canillas mail in this thread:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=136334655902407&w=2
> which is stating a question to grand, and contains the below
> hunk:
> 
>> +static int gpio_irq_request(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> +       struct gpio_bank *bank = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +
>> +       return gpio_request(irq_to_gpio(bank, d->irq), "gpio-irq");
>> +}
> 
> irq_to_gpio(). Notice that. not my_funny_driver_irq_to_gpio().
> 
> It's the same thing you mention below:
> 
>> If I recall the patch I'm replying to correctly, the idea was to add an
>> "IRQ request" operation that would (internally to the GPIO/IRQ driver
>> itself) map IRQ->GPIO, and call gpio_request(). That would then prevent
>> exactly the situation you mention above.

OK, right. sorry for being so confused/confusing.

Yes, that code should certainly call e.g. omap_gpio__irq_to_gpio() not
irq_to_gpio(). Probably gpio_irq_request() wants renaming to something
more like omap_gpio__irq_request() too, so the names don't look like
they'd clash with global functions. (__ added for clarity but probably
only one _ at a time)