On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:37:46PM -0400, Yufeng Shen wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Nick Dyer <nick.d...@itdev.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 07:17:44PM +0200, rydb...@euromail.se wrote: > > >>> From: Yufeng Shen <mile...@chromium.org> > > >>> This is the preparation for supporting the code path when there is > > >>> platform data provided and still boot the device into a sane state > > >>> with backup NVRAM config. > > >>> > > >>> Make the irqflags default to be IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING if no platform > > >>> data is > > >>> provided. > > > > > > I think if there is no platform data we should use 0 as IRQ falgs and > > > assume that IRQ line is properly configured by the board code or via > > > device tree. > > > > Beson/Yufeng - do you still have a requirement to probe without platform > > data or device tree? I'm just merging in some changes to add device tree > > support, and it would simplify things a bit if I can drop this patch. > > > It has been working for quite a while for boards/devices that don't > provide platform > data. If we drop the default IRQ flags, sure we can add code for each > board to configure > the IRQ separately, but that's just adding extra work. Is there strong > reason why we > should not do the default setting in the driver if it is not already > configured in platform > data ?
I am not saying that board code needs to add platform data. I am saying that the board code needs to set up interrupt properly (via irq_set_irq_type() or similar) and then the driver can use 0 as irqflags argument in request_irq() in absence of DT/platform data. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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/
