From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [v5] pinctrl: qcom: add support for sparse GPIOs Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:04:19 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1504798409-32041-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> <20170919070422.GI3349@codeaurora.org> <1ecdf6ee-5098-15d3-f85e-66b39a6c25f9@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:60494 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751529AbdITNEW (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:04:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Stephen Boyd , Andy Gross , David Brown , anjiandi@codeaurora.org, Bjorn Andersson , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , "thierry.reding@gmail.com" , Mika Westerberg , Andy Shevchenko 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.