Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:25:13 +0530 | From | Laxman Dewangan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] regmap: irq: do not write mask register if it is not supported |
| |
On Thursday 14 February 2013 05:05 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:36:08PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 07:50 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> for (i = 0; i < d->chip->num_regs; i++) { >>>> + if (!d->chip->mask_base) >>>> + goto skip_mask_reg_update; >>> Why is this inside the loop? > You appear to have ignored this question.
I have accepted this to put out of loop. Originally thought that Inside loop, there is two register update one is mask and other is wakup. If I ignore the loop for mask_base= 0 then probably wake_ register will not get updated and hence it is inside the loop to update the wake register. If there is wake_base is 0 then this register update will be ignored anyhow.
> >>> I'd also expect us to return an error if a caller tries to enable or >>> disable an interrupt, or possibly to give different ops to the IRQ >>> subsystem, rather than just silently claim we did what we were asked. > if I remove the mask_buf at all then how do we tell the int_sts > register is corresponding to which gpio handler? > This doesn't sound like something that should be open coded in > individual interrupt controller drivers, obviously it's a bit rubbish > that there's no way to enable or disable the interrupt but presumably > other hardware has the same "feature" and the IRQ subsystem ought to > understand it. >
To support such case, can we assume that mask is always enabled (interrupt enabled) so that it can be use in irq_thread to mask the interrupt status. So during initialization, if there is no mask_base register then all mask_buf is such that it enabled interrupt.
| |