From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: timur@codeaurora.org (Timur Tabi) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:04:19 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] [v5] pinctrl: qcom: add support for sparse GPIOs In-Reply-To: References: <1504798409-32041-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <20170919070422.GI3349@codeaurora.org> <1ecdf6ee-5098-15d3-f85e-66b39a6c25f9@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 9/20/17 6:43 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > Doesn't that mean we need something like irq_valid_mask but rather > gpio_valid_mask that just block all usage of certain GPIOs? That raises a lot of questions. In the meantime, my current patches for 4.14 work fine. Do we replace irq_valid_mask with gpio_valid_mask? That would break drivers where the GPIO is valid but the interrupt is not. If we keep both, what happens if gpio_valid_mask is false but irq_valid_mask is true? And then we would need to audit all gpio drivers to see which ones should be updated for the new infrastructure. -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.