On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:14:02PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On 11/18/21 15:35, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:48:26PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> > This isn't the usual pattern, normally we would have the driver assign
> > the helper operation.  We can always still do the check based on finding
> > the expected map_event set up.

> So, do you suggest that we export the map_event_simple() as a helper 
> which drivers can provide to irq_helpers? If yes, do you think we should 

Yes.

> leave out the sanity check regarding the conditions (only one common 
> error and only one rdev)? Or should we compare the given map function to 
> the adress of the map_event_simple() and perform checks if it matches? 
> It looks a bit strange to me. Or did you have some other vision?

I don't really mind either way on the checks, they might help someone
but on the other hand having them based on a check that a particular
helper is used is a bit odd like you say so I wouldn't mind if they
went.  I don't really have any other idea for doing them.