On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:23:39AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > This uses the new API for tagging GPIO lines as in use by > IRQs. This enforces a few semantic checks on how the underlying > GPIO line is used. > > Cc: Mathias Nyman <[email protected]> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> > --- > ChangeLog v1->v2: > - Explicitly call .enable()/.disable() callbacks from the > startup()/shutdown() callbacks to satisfy implicit semantics. > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-lynxpoint.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-lynxpoint.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-lynxpoint.c > index a0804740a0b7..70831e4b2c8b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-lynxpoint.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-lynxpoint.c > @@ -301,6 +301,26 @@ static void lp_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d) > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lg->lock, flags); > } > > +static unsigned int lp_irq_startup(struct irq_data *d) > +{ > + struct lp_gpio *lg = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); > + > + if (gpio_lock_as_irq(&lg->chip, irqd_to_hwirq(d))) > + dev_err(lg->chip.dev, > + "unable to lock HW IRQ %lu for IRQ\n", > + irqd_to_hwirq(d)); > + lp_irq_enable(d);
I may be missing something but doesn't this now end up calling lp_irq_enable() twice? First in ->irq_startup() and then later on in ->irq_enable(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
