From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] gpio: remove gpiod_lock/unlock_as_irq() Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:45:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1406013463-19218-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> <1406013463-19218-5-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42]:50185 "EHLO mail-oa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932492AbaGWPpU (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:45:20 -0400 Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id n16so1866875oag.1 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1406013463-19218-5-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Alexandre Courbot Cc: "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexandre Courbot On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > gpio_lock/unlock_as_irq() are working with (chip, offset) arguments and > are thus not using the old integer namespace. Therefore, there is no > reason to have gpiod variants of these functions working with > descriptors, especially since the (chip, offset) tuple is more suitable > to the users of these functions (GPIO drivers, whereas GPIO descriptors > are targeted at GPIO consumers). > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot Argh the mess is likely my fault for not having wrapped my head around descriptors properly at the time. Patch applied, naturally. Yours, Linus Walleij