From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754946AbaDGJ76 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:59:58 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:49963 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753510AbaDGJ7z (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:59:55 -0400 Message-ID: <53427718.30406@linutronix.de> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:59:52 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastian Hesselbarth , atull@altera.com CC: linus.walleij@linaro.org, gnurou@gmail.com, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dinguyen@altera.com, delicious.quinoa@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] gpio: dwapb: use a second irq chip References: <1395505004-22650-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1395505004-22650-7-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <5331F6D5.7070809@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5331F6D5.7070809@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/25/2014 10:36 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: >> @@ -242,17 +244,28 @@ static void dwapb_configure_irqs(struct dwapb_gpio *gpio, >> irq_gc->reg_base = gpio->regs; >> irq_gc->private = gpio; >> >> - ct = irq_gc->chip_types; >> - ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; >> - ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; >> - ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; >> - ct->chip.irq_set_type = dwapb_irq_set_type; >> - ct->chip.irq_enable = dwapb_irq_enable; >> - ct->chip.irq_disable = dwapb_irq_disable; >> - ct->chip.irq_request_resources = dwapb_irq_reqres; >> - ct->chip.irq_release_resources = dwapb_irq_relres; >> - ct->regs.ack = GPIO_PORTA_EOI; >> - ct->regs.mask = GPIO_INTMASK; >> + for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) { >> + >> + ct = &irq_gc->chip_types[i]; >> + ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; >> + ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; >> + ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; >> + ct->chip.irq_set_type = dwapb_irq_set_type; >> + ct->chip.irq_enable = dwapb_irq_enable; >> + ct->chip.irq_disable = dwapb_irq_disable; >> + ct->chip.irq_request_resources = dwapb_irq_reqres; >> + ct->chip.irq_release_resources = dwapb_irq_relres; >> + ct->regs.ack = GPIO_PORTA_EOI; >> + ct->regs.mask = GPIO_INTMASK; >> + >> + if (i == 0) { >> + ct->type = IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK; >> + ct->handler = handle_level_irq; >> + } else { >> + ct->type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH; >> + ct->handler = handle_edge_irq; >> + } > > Sebastian, > > IMHO the loop looks strange, especially with the (i == 0) check. how so? > How about unrolling it again and assign both chip_types independently? If more code makes you happy so be it. I will post the series soon with the loop unrolled. > Sebastian Sebastian