On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 16:00 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> @@ -372,11 +372,33 @@ static void byt_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
> {
> }
>
> +static unsigned int byt_irq_startup(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> + struct byt_gpio *vg = irq_data_get_irq_handler_data(d);
> +
> + if (gpio_lock_as_irq(&vg->chip, irqd_to_hwirq(d)))
> + dev_err(vg->chip.dev,
> + "unable to lock HW IRQ %lu for IRQ\n",
> + irqd_to_hwirq(d));
> + byt_irq_unmask(d);
> + return 0;
> +}
Just a thought: If failure to lock is non-fatal, should the
message be a warning then?
I do agree that failure to lock the GPIO should be non-fatal, as
there was debate and still might be concerns about how strict
locking should be.
virtually yours
Gerhard Sittig
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: off...@denx.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
