From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] regmap-irq: add "main register" and level-irq support
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:26:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181214172619.GC6467@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181214135819.GA2735@localhost.localdomain>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1833 bytes --]
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:14:18PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > Then we could have chip->no_of set for the 'main irq chip' and for those
> > > chips we don't wan't to expose via DT. In my case I would leave no_of
> > > unset only for the irq-chip which I created for the GPIO? Is this a
> > > silly idea?
> > That's worth a shot, yes - I'd need to see it fully fleshed out I think
> > but it looks sensible (no ternery operator please).
> Do you think this would be benefical even if we add the 'main irq
> support'? If so, I can generate a patch out of this. I think this would
> really suffice for my current need - but this stops wokrking as soon as
> more than one sub-irq-chip want's to expose interrupts via DT.
Hrm, yeah. That's a thing. I think I'd misvisualized the DT change as
being the other way around for some reason.
> > Your idea definitely works for the current case, yes - I'm just thinking
> > about future edge and extension cases.
> I could send an example on how the driver utilizing the original RFC
> interface would look like. I am starting to think it was not *that* bad
> after all...
That might help, yes.
> > > I see your point now. But as I said, I am not sure we should add the
> > > overhead of 'main irq bit description' for simple cases just to cover
> > > the corner cases. Yet I can try seeing what I can come up with if you
> > > think this is the way to go.
> > If you could take a look that'd be great.
> I did some experiment. I will post this as another RFC - but I am really
> not terribly happy about it. It's complex (well, in my opinion) and I am
> not sure the driver interface is much easier. But you can see it
> yourself.
Great, I'll take a proper look on Monday. Thanks for putting the time
in here!
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-14 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-30 8:59 [RFC] regmap-irq: add "main register" and level-irq support Matti Vaittinen
2018-12-04 17:21 ` Mark Brown
2018-12-05 8:22 ` Matti Vaittinen
2018-12-05 17:27 ` Mark Brown
2018-12-07 7:58 ` Matti Vaittinen
2018-12-07 13:14 ` Mark Brown
2018-12-14 13:58 ` Matti Vaittinen
2018-12-14 17:26 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2018-12-17 8:19 ` Matti Vaittinen
2018-12-17 8:30 ` Matti Vaittinen
2018-12-17 18:50 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181214172619.GC6467@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).