Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

[Lars Poeschel <poeschel@lemonage.de>]

Am Freitag, 30. August 2013, 14:08:41 schrieb Stephen Warren:
> On 08/29/2013 01:00 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> 
wrote:
> >> On 08/23/2013 12:45 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>> This is a perfectly OK thing to do as long as it is done like
> >>> this:
> >>> 
> >>> request_gpio(gpio);
> >>> gpio_direction_input(gpio);
> >>> request_irq(gpio_to_irq(gpio));
> >> 
> >> But I'm not aware that there's a rule saying it's illegal to:
> >> 
> >> request_irq(gpio_to_irq(gpio));
> >> request_gpio(gpio);
> >> gpio_direction_input(gpio);
> > 
> > No but I think there should be one ... maybe I'm an oddball
> > but it seems natural to request a GPIO before tying
> > IRQs to fire off it.
> 
> What if there is no GPIO?

If there is no GPIO there is no gpio-controller and there is no problem.

> There are plenty of chips with dedicated IRQ input pins that can't be
> read as GPIOs, or treated as GPIOs in any way.
> 
> If a driver only needs IRQ input functionality, it should just request
> an IRQ and be done with it. There should be no need at all for the
> driver to know that the IRQ might be routed into a GPIO controller, and
> hence that the driver may (or may not) need to additionally request the
> GPIO before requesting the IRQ.

Yes, you're right, but reality is different. Legacy drivers / board-files do:

request_gpio(gpio);
gpio_direction_input(gpio);
request_irq(gpio_to_irq(gpio));
 
> In other words, request_irq() must do everything necessary for the input
> signal to operate as an IRQ input, irrespective of whether it might be
> possible to use that input signal as a GPIO.