Hi, On 1/20/21 8:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:18 PM Hans de Goede <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 1/18/21 2:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 02:13:50PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> >>>> More in general I'm not aware of any (recent-ish) x86 GPIO controllers >>>> not being able to do active low interrupts. In theory we could hit this >>>> code path on ARM devices using ACPI enumeration, but I don't think it >>>> is likely we will see a combination of ARM + ACPI enumeration + >>>> WM5102 + GPIO controller not capable of active-low interrupts. >>> >>> I've not seen this issue on any ARM based systems. >>> >>>> This overriding of the flags definitely is necessary on the Lenovo >>>> devices in question. I could add a >>>> "if (dmi_name_in_vendors("LENOVO"))" guard around it, but that >>>> seems unnecessary. >>> >>> Possibly just an update to the comment to make it clear that some >>> firmwares might legitimately set the flag? >> >> Ok, I've extended the comment above the override of the irq-flags with >> the following paragraph for v4 of this patch-set: >> >> * Note theoretically it is possible that some boards are not capable >> * of handling active low level interrupts. In that case setting the >> * flag to IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING would not be a bug (and we would need >> * to work around this) but sofar all known usages of >> IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING > > so far > >> * are a bug in the boards DSDT. > > board's >
Thank you for the quick review, I've fixed both spelling errors for the upcoming v4. Regards, Hans
