From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751388AbaEXMl4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 May 2014 08:41:56 -0400 Received: from kdh-gw.itdev.co.uk ([89.21.227.133]:7610 "EHLO hermes.kdh.itdev.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750845AbaEXMlz (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 May 2014 08:41:55 -0400 Message-ID: <5380938E.5010408@itdev.co.uk> Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 13:41:50 +0100 From: Nick Dyer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yufeng Shen CC: Benson Leung , Dmitry Torokhov , Henrik Rydberg , Daniel Kurtz , Joonyoung Shim , Alan Bowens , linux-input , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Meerwald , Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/51] Input: atmel_mxt_ts - Set default irqflags when there is no pdata References: <1372337366-9286-1-git-send-email-nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk> <1372337366-9286-21-git-send-email-nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk> <20130718171744.GC32381@polaris.bitmath.org> <20130916022533.GA6468@core.coreip.homeip.net> <537E09D6.7050604@itdev.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Yufeng Shen wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Nick Dyer wrote: >> Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>> Make the irqflags default to be IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING if no platform data is >>>>> provided. >>> >>> I think if there is no platform data we should use 0 as IRQ falgs and >>> assume that IRQ line is properly configured by the board code or via >>> device tree. >> >> Benson/Yufeng - do you still have a requirement to probe without platform >> data or device tree? I'm just merging in some changes to add device tree >> support, and it would simplify things a bit if I can drop this patch. > > It has been working for quite a while for boards/devices that don't > provide platform data. If we drop the default IRQ flags, sure we can add > code for each board to configure the IRQ separately, but that's just > adding extra work. Is there strong reason why we should not do the > default setting in the driver if it is not already configured in > platform data? OK, I will keep it in my tree for the moment, since you are using it. The reason I checked is that in general, I would like to be conservative about what is pushed upstream, because it will need maintaining for a long time. The other reason is that in fact Atmel recommend IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW for these chips, not IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING, so there is a bit of an inconsistency here.