Re: [PATCH v4] gpio: driver for PrimeCell PL061 GPIO controller

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:22:31 +0300 Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> > >  static unsigned int pl061_irq_startup(unsigned irq)
> > >  {
> > > -	int ret;
> > > -
> > > -	ret = gpio_request(irq_to_gpio(irq), "IRQ");
> > > -	if (ret < 0) {
> > > -		pr_warning("%s: warning: gpio_request(%d) returned %d\n",
> > > -				__func__, irq_to_gpio(irq), ret);
> > > -		return 0;
> > > -	}
> > > +	if (gpio_request(irq_to_gpio(irq), "IRQ") == 0)
> > > +		pr_warning("%s: warning: GPIO%d has not been requested\n",
> > > +				__func__, irq_to_gpio(irq));
> > 
> > This is wrong, isn't it?  gpio_request() returns 0 on success.
> 
> Russell said that gpio configuration is the responsibility of the platform 
> code. Here I just warn when the gpio has not been requested, and thus 
> gpio_request() succeeds. I'll add a comment.

OK.

If the gpio_request() accidentally succeeded, should we gpio_free() the
result here?

Should the gpio core provide a primitive to check that a gpio has been
properly requested rathe rthan open-coding it here?

> > >  static void pl061_irq_handler(unsigned irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
> > >  {
> > > +	struct list_head *chip_list = get_irq_chip_data(irq);
> > > +	struct list_head *ptr;
> > > +	struct pl061_gpio *chip;
> > > +
> > >  	desc->chip->ack(irq);
> > > -	while (1) {
> > > +	list_for_each(ptr, chip_list) {
> > 
> > What locking protects the newly-added list?
> 
> Do we need locking even though we list_add() only at probe time?

Nope.  I guess.  It depends on the driver.  hotplug/hot-remove needs to
beconsidered often.

> (Compiling as 
> a module is not supported, so this only happens at boot time).

The probe handler is probably serialised against everything else even if
the driver _is_ a module.