Re: [PATCH 03/03] GPIO: Add TB10x GPIO driver

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Christian Ruppert
<christian.ruppert@abilis.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:19:17PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:

>> It's not like I'm 100% certain on where to use one or the other
>> construct (a mechanism like the above is needed for threaded
>> IRQs I've noticed) but the chained handler seems more to the
>> point does it not?
>>
>> The only downside I've seen is that the parent IRQ does not get
>> a name and the accumulated IRQ stats in /proc/interrupts but
>> surely we can live without that (or fix it).
>>
>> Since I'm a bit rusty on chained IRQs correct me if I'm wrong...
>
> OK, it took me a while to figure this back out again because as far as
> I'm familiar with the IRQ framework you're right. The reason I'm not
> using irq_set_chained_handler is that we have one driver instance per
> GPIO bank and all GPIO banks share the same interrupt line. This means
> every driver instance needs its own (different) user data and a simple
> call to irq_set_handler_data(tb10x_gpio) won't suffice. I'm not aware of
> any mechanism that allows interrupt sharing with the
> irq_set_chained_handler() mechanism.

OK yes makes perfect sense. We'll live with this then.

I didn't see a new version of this patch with the other two, shall
I just apply this last version in the pin control tree with the
two other patches?

Yours,
Linus Walleij