From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934354Ab3BNLzl (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:55:41 -0500 Received: from hqemgate04.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.35]:1426 "EHLO hqemgate04.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759715Ab3BNLzh (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 06:55:37 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Thu, 14 Feb 2013 03:55:02 -0800 Message-ID: <511CD0A1.70606@nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:25:13 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regmap: irq: do not write mask register if it is not supported References: <1360761290-15976-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1360761290-15976-2-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20130213142036.GJ5062@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <511CC520.8050104@nvidia.com> <20130214113531.GC13249@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20130214113531.GC13249@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.