On 12/19/2012 11:59 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Monday 17 December 2012 02:57 PM, Andreas Fenkart wrote:
>
> Please add some changelog here too.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Fenkart <[email protected]>
>> ---
> Patch seems straight forward thought will be interesting where you found
> the need of it.
The only item that I was thinking of if the behaviour of mask/unmask
should be different from enable/disable?
When a gpio interrupt is masked, the gpio event will still be latched in
the interrupt status register so when you unmask it later you may get an
interrupt straight away. However, if the interrupt is disabled then gpio
events occurring will not be latched/stored.
I am also interested in the need for this, and if we should have a true
enable/disable here.
Cheers
Jon
>
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> index d335af1..c1951ec 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>> @@ -815,6 +815,8 @@ static struct irq_chip gpio_irq_chip = {
>> .irq_unmask = gpio_unmask_irq,
>> .irq_set_type = gpio_irq_type,
>> .irq_set_wake = gpio_wake_enable,
>> + .irq_disable = gpio_mask_irq,
>> + .irq_enable = gpio_unmask_irq,
>> };
>>
>>
>> /*---------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
