From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754475Ab2G3RZm (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:25:42 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:45732 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754077Ab2G3RZl (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:25:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:25:39 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Stephen Warren Cc: Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Samuel Ortiz , Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] regmap: enhance regmap-irq to handle 1 IRQ feeding n chips Message-ID: <20120730172538.GM4468@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1343415716-27134-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1343415716-27134-3-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20120729203636.GE4384@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5016BD94.4080302@wwwdotorg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5016BD94.4080302@wwwdotorg.org> X-Cookie: Give him an evasive answer. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:00:04AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/29/2012 02:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:01:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > I had implemented this in regmap since you'd specifically mentioned > doing that. If I convert the code not to use separate IRQ domains for I think what I'd said was that we should factor it out rather than that it should be specifically done in regmap. > this, would that be acceptable? Probably. > >> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(d->dev); > >> + if (ret < 0) { > > This is conditional in the core regmap runtime PM support, it may be > > actively harmful if the device doesn't need it. > Hmmm. I actually don't see any pm_*() usage in regmap right now. I > assume this /is/ needed to convert arizona.c, since it's making these > calls today. I don't need it for max8907.c. Should I add another flag to > regmap_add_irq_chips() indicating whether this is needed, or ...? It's not in -next yet due to the merge window. There's already a flag for it in the irq chip data.