Hi Mika, On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Mika Westerberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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(). > --
As far as I understood from Grygorii explanation chip->irq_startup() and chip->irq_enable() are mutually exclusive at request_[threaded]_irq(). And he seems to be correct by looking at irq_startup() in irq/chip.c [0]. Thanks a lot and best regards, Javier [0]: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/kernel/irq/chip.c#L175 -- 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
