Re: [PATCH 2/2] regmap: irq: do not write mask register if it is not supported

[Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>]

On Thursday 14 February 2013 05:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:36:08PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 07:50 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>   	for (i = 0; i < d->chip->num_regs; i++) {
>>>> +		if (!d->chip->mask_base)
>>>> +			goto skip_mask_reg_update;
>>> Why is this inside the loop?
> You appear to have ignored this question.

I have accepted this to put out of loop.
Originally  thought that Inside loop, there is two register update one 
is mask and other is wakup. If I ignore the loop for mask_base= 0 then 
probably wake_ register will not get updated and hence it is inside the 
loop to update the wake register. If there is wake_base is 0 then this 
register update will be ignored anyhow.



>
>>> I'd also expect us to return an error if a caller tries to enable or
>>> disable an interrupt, or possibly to give different ops to the IRQ
>>> subsystem, rather than just silently claim we did what we were asked.
> if I remove the mask_buf at all then how do we tell the int_sts
> register is corresponding to which gpio handler?
> This doesn't sound like something that should be open coded in
> individual interrupt controller drivers, obviously it's a bit rubbish
> that there's no way to enable or disable the interrupt but presumably
> other hardware has the same "feature" and the IRQ subsystem ought to
> understand it.
>

To support such case, can we assume that mask is always enabled 
(interrupt enabled) so that it can be use in irq_thread to mask the 
interrupt status. So during initialization, if there is no mask_base 
register then all mask_buf is such that it enabled interrupt.