From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937217Ab3DJKuf (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:50:35 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:52682 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752570Ab3DJKue (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:50:34 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,445,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="225471811" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:54:26 +0300 From: Mika Westerberg To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Mathias Nyman , Linus Walleij , grant.likely@secretlab.ca, ACPI Devel Maling List , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio / ACPI: Handle ACPI events in accordance with the spec Message-ID: <20130410105426.GB1283@intel.com> References: <3043137.BtEKcMiXSu@vostro.rjw.lan> <51652035.5000802@linux.intel.com> <20130410091747.GO21818@intel.com> <7616728.CEZnGS3Ki9@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7616728.CEZnGS3Ki9@vostro.rjw.lan> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo 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 Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:17:47 PM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:17:57AM +0300, Mathias Nyman wrote: > > > On 04/10/2013 10:53 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > >On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:57:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >>+void acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts(struct gpio_chip *chip) > > > >>+{ > > > >>+ acpi_handle handle; > > > >>+ acpi_status status; > > > >>+ struct list_head *evt_pins; > > > >>+ struct acpi_gpio_evt_pin *evt_pin, *ep; > > > >>+ > > > >>+ if (!chip->dev || !chip->to_irq) > > > >>+ return; > > > >>+ > > > >>+ handle = ACPI_HANDLE(chip->dev); > > > >>+ if (!handle) > > > >>+ return; > > > >>+ > > > >>+ status = acpi_get_data(handle, acpi_gpio_evt_dh, (void **)&evt_pins); > > > >>+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > > > >>+ return; > > > >>+ > > > >>+ list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(evt_pin, ep, evt_pins, node) { > > > >>+ devm_free_irq(chip->dev, evt_pin->irq, evt_pin); > > > > > > > >How about using normal request/free_irq() functions for both _EVT and > > > >non-_EVT events? Since we now need to call acpi_gpiochip_free_interrupts() > > > >anyway, I don't see the point using devm_* functions here. > > > > > > > > > > Then we need to create a list of non-_EVT events, or add them to the > > > evt_pins list. > > > > Good point. Maybe we can add them to the evt_pins list and handle the same > > way as _EVT (except that we need to call _Exx and _Lxx methods instead of > > _EVT)? > > The difference is that the evt_pins data is only needed for _EVT execution, > because _EVT takes the pin argument. _Lxx/_Exx don't take arguments and > there's no need to add extra data structures for them, as devm_ does what's > needed. OK, thanks for the explanation. > Of course, plain request/free_irq may be used for the _EVT events only > at the expense of a little more complexity in acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(). I'm not sure whether it is a good thing to mix devm_ and plain request/free here. And more complexity is always bad so I guess we can stay with this implementation now. Feel free to add my Acked-by: Mika Westerberg