From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758256AbbDVTxN (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:53:13 -0400 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:63161 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756678AbbDVTxJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:53:09 -0400 Message-ID: <5537FC21.9050602@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:53:05 +0300 From: Vladimir Zapolskiy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Semen Protsenko , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: max732x: Add IRQF_SHARED to irq flags References: <1429622344-19429-1-git-send-email-semen.protsenko@globallogic.com> In-Reply-To: <1429622344-19429-1-git-send-email-semen.protsenko@globallogic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.76] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Semen, On 21.04.2015 16:19, Semen Protsenko wrote: > It's possible that multiple MAX732X can be hooked up to the same > interrupt line with the processor. So add IRQF_SHARED in requesting irq. > > Signed-off-by: Semen Protsenko > --- > drivers/gpio/gpio-max732x.c | 10 ++++------ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-max732x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-max732x.c > index 0fa4543..55b13d4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-max732x.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-max732x.c > @@ -507,12 +507,10 @@ static int max732x_irq_setup(struct max732x_chip *chip, > chip->irq_features = has_irq; > mutex_init(&chip->irq_lock); > > - ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, > - client->irq, > - NULL, > - max732x_irq_handler, > - IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT, > - dev_name(&client->dev), chip); > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, > + NULL, max732x_irq_handler, IRQF_ONESHOT | > + IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_SHARED, > + dev_name(&client->dev), chip); is it still the case that for shared interrupts a hard IRQ handler is mandatory to have? Here I rely on http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/2011-March/001118.html With best wishes, Vladimir