On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 29/09/14 16:05, Pramod Gurav wrote: >>> >>> >I think the correct fix is: >>> > >>> >diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c >>> >index 5475374..4060c30 100644 >>> >--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c >>> >+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c >>> >@@ -1512,7 +1512,7 @@ static int st_gpiolib_register_bank(struct >>> > st_pinctrl >>> >*info, >>> > gpio_irq, >>> > st_gpio_irq_handler); >>> > } >>> > >>> >- if (info->irqmux_base > 0 || gpio_irq > 0) { >>> >+ if (!IS_ERR(info->irqmux_base) || gpio_irq > 0) { >>> > err = gpiochip_irqchip_add(&bank->gpio_chip, >> >> But if I am not wrong in function st_pctl_probe_dt, This is already done: >> >> if (IS_ERR(info->irqmux_base)) >> return PTR_ERR(info->irqmux_base); >> >> That is the reason I thought there is no need to recheck the pointer >> info->irqmux_base. >> Am I misunderstanding something? > > > Ok, we want to add the irqchip only when there is a valid irqmux_base or a > valid gpio_irq per bank. > > As st_gpiolib_register_bank() is used by both types of irq wirings and it > does not know if irqmux or gpio irq is in use, so we need this explicit > check. Also we want to make sure that atleast one type is valid before > adding irqchip. > > If you just check for only gpio_irq in this code, you would miss the case > where irqmux is used. > > As Dan pointed you could check if irqmux_base is valid and not remove it > totally. Removing it will *break* the irqmux support as I explained. Thanks Srini, Will resend the patch. > > thanks, > srini > > > >>> >&st_gpio_irqchip, >>> > 0, handle_simple_irq, >>> > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW); >>> > >>> >
-- Thanks and Regards Pramod -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
