Return-Path: <linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:64910 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750863AbbCYJp4 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 05:45:56 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:43:27 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Robert Dolca <robert.dolca@gmail.com>,
	Robert Dolca <robert.dolca@intel.com>,
	"linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
	Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
	Denis CIOCCA <denis.ciocca@st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IIO: Adds ACPI support for ST gyroscopes
Message-ID: <20150325094327.GW1878@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <1427118025-4380-1-git-send-email-robert.dolca@intel.com>
 <551155C3.2030403@metafoo.de>
 <CAFPB+YdwrPoob1CPdUfSt2uBJWPi=6_0-d0NChj2agD6-z-8qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <551168F0.1090901@metafoo.de>
 <CACRpkdaOQ-onkgQJSyoVEQNtkZ9nF_4z=9jNdU-tug-TwvAAkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150324150630.GP1878@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <CACRpkdYmN5YnH5rcA13NerPKdx62TpQVi5Hwr1vchu13QUcaOw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYmN5YnH5rcA13NerPKdx62TpQVi5Hwr1vchu13QUcaOw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 09:44:34AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > This has few problems that I have not yet figured out. Maybe someone
> > here can suggest what to do:
> >
> >  1) Who is responsible in releasing the GPIO?
> >  2) What if the driver wants to use that pin as a GPIO instead? The GPIO
> >     is already requested by the I2C core.
> 
> In the DT usecase we actually specify that in the DTS file
> so we don't have the problem. Either the consumer accesses
> the irqchip API with:
> 
> interrupts = <nn nn>;
> 
> or it accesses the GPIO API with:
> 
> gpios = <nn nn>;

OK, I see.

> so in that sense it is clear what is requested. Then the core
> of course uses gpiochip_lock/unlock_as_irq() to handle the
> case where bugs make a collision (like if both were specified
> and both APIs tries to access the same resource).

Where in the core code gpiochip_lock/unlock_as_irq() is called for
these? At least of_irq_get() doesn't seem to be doing that. Maybe I'm
looking at the wrong place.

> But as long as the DTS file is consistent there is no problem.
> 
> So it seems the ACPI tables are lacking this semantic
> information?

I think the GpioIo/GpioInt separation serves the same purpose. Of course
both refer to GPIO controller instead of interrupt controller.