On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> wrote: > On 04/23/2014 08:01 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> What about this: >> >> if (chip->irq_default_type != IRQ_TYPE_NONE) >> irq_set_irq_type(irq, chip->irq_default_type); >> >> This way you can pass IRQ_TYPE_NONE and nothing happens in >> the mapping. > > What if these drivers depend on IRQ_TYPE_NONE to do something for the > GPIO pins? Yeah :-( > would you expect these drivers to pass IRQ_TYPE_DEFAULT? Actually that sounds like a good idea. Maybe we can go over the few drivers that pass IRQ_TYPE_NONE and see what they actually want. There are not *too* many users of this call yet. > OR I wonder > if we could pass some flag like -1 for platforms that dont care? The flags parameter to gpiochip_irqchip_add() is unsigned... Switching to IRQ_TYPE_DEFAULT for drivers that want this is likely the sane thing to do. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
