From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.torgue@st.com (Alexandre Torgue) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:40:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support In-Reply-To: References: <1473432124-6784-1-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <1473432124-6784-3-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <6941f61d-0b33-4108-0135-b11887cd0488@st.com> <39c4ceee-7e05-ebfd-2ea0-3c4e1c4ea619@st.com> Message-ID: <053a37f4-aa10-46ea-f477-8ae55bb5773f@st.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Thomas, On 09/20/2016 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >>> On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>> Well, you just used some function in some context which is not >>>> relevant to >>>> the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no >>>> value. >>> >> A gentle reminder ping... >> If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain. Sorry for discussing about the same thing again (and again) but I just want to be sure before sending a new version. As you know I have 2 domains: EXTI domain (parent) and stm32-pinctrl-bank domain (child one). There does it make sens to have ".free" callbacks defined in both domain (actually if I define one for the child domain I have to define also ".free" callback for parent domain (EXTI) as it is hierarchical) ? If ".free" have no chance to be called then I will send a new version by removing .free callbacks (in both domain). Regards Alex > > I was not talking about the .free callback in general. I was talking about > the masking. But yes, if the thing is otherwise a NOOP, then you can spare > it completely. > > Thanks, > > tglx >