From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:10:32 +0200 Subject: irq_create_fwspec_mapping() in 4.8-rc2 In-Reply-To: References: <483F737F-9868-4E8A-A831-AA3F6F410AFF@gmail.com> <57C98975.5020607@arm.com> <9FCA11A3-B677-42EA-80DB-674AC8E489E8@gmail.com> <57C99111.3030105@arm.com> <57C9961F.8080602@arm.com> <57C99B3D.3010405@arm.com> Message-ID: <95478224-6dcd-3b36-90cf-881b380aca95@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le 05/09/2016 ? 14:40, Linus Walleij a ?crit : > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> +Linus, Jean-Christophe, Jon >> >> On 02/09/16 16:15, Andras Szemzo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On 02 Sep 2016, at 17:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>>> >>>> So something has already configured the interrupt to be >>>> IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH, and this clashes with your >>>> IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING. >>>> >>>> My bet is on this one: >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c >>>> index 80daead..9f09041 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c >>>> @@ -1614,7 +1614,7 @@ static int at91_gpio_of_irq_setup(struct platform_device *pdev, >>>> &gpio_irqchip, >>>> 0, >>>> handle_edge_irq, >>>> - IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH); >>>> + IRQ_TYPE_NONE); >>>> if (ret) { >>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "at91_gpio.%d: Couldn't add irqchip to gpiochip.\n", >>>> at91_gpio->pioc_idx); >>>> >>>> Can you give it a go and let me know what happens? >>> >>> yes, this fixed the problem. Thank you, it was fast! >> >> Right. So the at91 pinctlr seems to enforce a default configuration. The >> question is *why*? All interrupts connected to it should provide their >> own trigger coming from DT. > > I guess for legacy boardfile usecases or just how it happened to end > up during development. > >> As we now actually check that we have some consistency between what is >> configured and what is requested, it is bound to fail, unless you happen >> to match the default. > > Which is good! > >> What am I missing? > > Nothing, I am missing your patch on the mailing list with a Signed-off-by > so I can apply it (unless the Atmel people have complaints). Absolutely no complains, I've only noticed this discussion at the moment. Thanks Marc and Andras! Bye, -- Nicolas Ferre