Re: [PATCH 2/2] HID: i2c-hid: Add support for GPIO interrupts

[Mika Westerberg]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:33:34PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Ok, that allays my fear w.r.t. ordering of the resources.
> 
> As I see it, the fact that we convert GpioInt entries to GPIOs rather
> than irqs when parsing _CRS is the issue here, and to me it makes no
> sense that we do so. Were we to treat them as interrupts, the binding is
> fine as-is, and we'd do the same thing in DT and ACPI.
> 
> The reason GpioInt is separate from GpioIo is that a GpioInt _is_ an
> interrupt (which happens to be backed by a GPIO), and is not something
> that necessarily makes sense as a GPIO.

I would rather say that GpioInt *is* a GPIO. That can then used as an
interrupt but it should not prevent you from using it as GPIO instead.
For example if you just want to poll that something is 0 or 1. That
should be possible as well and nothing say that you cannot do that for
GpioInt().

> So why do we currently ignore the GpioInt/GpioIo distinction and treat
> GpioInts as GPIOs rather than interrupts?

See above.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/