Hi JJ, IIRC this patch was necessary for the DM9000 device, which is not defined in this series anymore. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's still a discussion about how this should be fixed properly (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/25/388).
As a result, shouldn't we remove this patch from this series ? Best Regards, Boris Le 03/03/2014 11:05, Jean-Jacques Hiblot a écrit :
During the xlate stage of the DT interrupt parsing, the at91 pinctrl driver requests the GPIOs that are described as interrupt sources. This prevents a driver to request the gpio later to get its electrical value. This patch replaces the gpio_request with a gpio_lock_as_irq to prevent the gpio to be set as an ouput while allowing a subsequent gpio_request to succeed Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhib...@traphandler.com> --- drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c index d990e33..db55b96 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c @@ -1478,18 +1478,17 @@ static int at91_gpio_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d, { struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = d->host_data; int ret; - int pin = at91_gpio->chip.base + intspec[0];if (WARN_ON(intsize < 2))return -EINVAL; *out_hwirq = intspec[0]; *out_type = intspec[1] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;- ret = gpio_request(pin, ctrlr->full_name);+ ret = gpio_lock_as_irq(&at91_gpio->chip, intspec[0]); if (ret) return ret;- ret = gpio_direction_input(pin);+ ret = at91_gpio_direction_input(&at91_gpio->chip, intspec[0]); if (ret) return ret;
-- 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/
