On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:42:01 +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > When gpio-pxa was moved to drivers/pxa, it became a driver, and its > initialization and probing happen at postcore initcall. The lubbock code > used to install the chained lubbock interrupt handler at init_irq() > time. > > The consequence of the gpio-pxa change is that the installed chained irq > handler lubbock_irq_handler() was overwritten in pxa_gpio_probe(_dt)(), > removing : > - the handler - the falling edge detection setting of GPIO0, which > revealed the > interrupt request from the lubbock IO board. > > As a fix, move the gpio0 chained handler setup to a place where we have > the guarantee that pxa_gpio_probe() was called before, so that lubbock > handler becomes the true IRQ chained handler of GPIO0, demuxing the > lubbock IO board interrupts. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarz...@free.fr> > --- > For Thomas: as a side note, I'm not very happy with this patch. What > makes me unhappy is that I don't know how to express the > dependency between gpio-pxa probe time and > irq_set_chained_handler(irq, lubbock_irq_handler). > > At the moment I rely on the fact that > lubbock_irq_device_init() is called as device initcall while > pxa_gpio_probe() is called as postcore initcall. > > If you have a better idea I'm all ears.
What about just making a lubbock CPLD a special separate device? Then it will have normal probe callback and a possibility to return -EPROBE_DEFER? If only syscon (drivers/mfd/syscon.c) could support irq generation, it would fit ideally. -- With best wishes 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/
