From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ivan T. Ivanov" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] New Qualcomm PMIC pin controller drivers Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:00:49 +0300 Message-ID: <1405350049.13503.35.camel@iivanov-dev> References: <1404745893-6379-1-git-send-email-iivanov@mm-sol.com> <1404904380.16296.17.camel@iivanov-dev> <1404999558.16296.31.camel@iivanov-dev> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Linus Walleij , Bjorn Andersson , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Russell King , Grant Likely , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2014-07-12 at 16:51 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 07:02 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > [..] > >> Correct Ivan; we do however share the same issues related to how to do > >> interrupt handling, > > > > Yep, but do we actually need to do interrupt handling in driver? > > Interrupts are handled by parent device. GPIO client drivers could > > use interrupt-controller registered by core driver? > > > > Among other things we have the volume and camera keys hooked to these > pins, using the gpio-keys driver; so that needs to be able to convert > a gpio to an irq. > But I don't believe we should turn this driver into an > interrupt-controller; as that wouldn't add any value... I agree. But I would like to avoid specifying 44 "interrupts" in DT files if they are known a priory in driver for specific chip. Only drawback that I could see is that it will be little odd for client drivers, which are using SPMI PMIC pinctrl driver, to specify 4 parameters required by interrupts property. Regards, Ivan