On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 08:37:55AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Anton Vorontsov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Jon,
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:06:23PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >> I have demultiplexing the GPIO interrupts working well enough to make
> >> my hardware work. But now I've discovered that these interrupts can't
> >> do what I need.
> >>
> >> Anton, Grant - are either of you interested in this code? It's not
> >> finished but the main ideas are in place.
> >
> > I think there is a small issue that ruins the whole approach.. :-/
> >
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/gpio.h
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/gpio.h
> >> @@ -38,17 +38,14 @@ static inline int gpio_cansleep(unsigned int gpio)
> >> return __gpio_cansleep(gpio);
> >> }
> >>
> >> -/*
> >> - * Not implemented, yet.
> >> - */
> >> -static inline int gpio_to_irq(unsigned int gpio)
> >> +static inline unsigned int gpio_to_irq(unsigned int gpio)
> >> {
> >> - return -ENOSYS;
> >> + return gpio;
> >
> > "GPIO 0" is valid gpio, but "IRQ 0" isn't valid virq. So you
> > can't do 1:1 mapping. :-(
>
> I changed the GPIO numbers inside of Linux to match the virqs.
>
> ofchip->gc.base = IRQ_GPIO_WKUP(0);
Well, I didn't say that it will not work, what I'm trying to say
is that I don't quite like the idea of 1:1 mapping for all gpio
chips.
It is error prone, i.e. gpio_to_irq() can't fail, so you can't
tell if gpio to irq translation really happened or not. Plus
we might decide to not do 1:1 mapping for other gpio chips.
I think that this translation should go via gpiolib's callback
(there is no .to_irq callback, but we should implement one).
In the callback you can still do 1:1 mapping, but this mapping
will work only for this particular gpio chip, and not for others.
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
