On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Chandrabhanu Mahapatra > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Leed Aguilar <[email protected]> >> >> Here, the implementation of registration of requested IRQs has been corrected >> with appropiate api's. The gpio number is requested through >> gpio_request_one() >> API and conversion of the gpio to irq is done using the gpio_to_irq() API. >> >> Change-Id: I964145e2a280d6553ea2c05ea8049810a1983930 > > Delete that. > >> Signed-off-by: Leed Aguilar <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Chandrabhanu Mahapatra <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 8 +++++++- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c >> index c3ca7d8..27486da 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c >> @@ -509,7 +509,13 @@ static int pca953x_irq_setup(struct pca953x_chip *chip, >> #endif >> } >> >> - ret = request_threaded_irq(client->irq, >> + ret = gpio_request_one(client->irq, GPIOF_IN, "pca953x"); > > Not that it's really related to this one patch, but why is a GPIO number named > "irq" in client->irq??
Sorry, for the late reply. You need not pull this patch. There has been some slight miss understanding and as it turns out the gpio_request_one() should actually be done in the board file with the appropriate gpio number. This gpio number should be converted to irq in the board file and then finally sent as client->irq to pca953x driver. Please undo this patch. -- Chandrabhanu Mahapatra Texas Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. -- 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/
