* Yegor Yefremov [off-list ref] [170606 07:37]:

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Yegor Yefremov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Uwe, Tony,

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Tony Lindgren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* Uwe Kleine-K?nig [off-list ref] [170526 11:09]:

quoted

According to the binding documentation and the source code the omap-gpio
controller takes IRQ_TYPE_* as its flags values, not GPIO_ACTIVE_*.

This patch uses the right variable type which yields the same result
when compiled. Note that this might be wrong and actually
IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW is intended by the dt author.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <redacted>
---
Hello,

can somebody with the hardware or it's documentation please check which
flag is the right one?

I'll wait on this one until we have somebody test it.

I'll look at it this week.

This is what works for me (at least it doesn't produce "irq 88: nobody
cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)").

As for tca6416 it is working with all possible settings (from
IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING till IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW). "cat /proc/interrupts"
always shows Level type:

47:          5  44e07000.gpio  20 Level     1-0020

OK, can you please send a proper patch with description
and Signed-off-by? That is unless Uwe cares to update his
patch. Otherwise add Reported-by for Uwe :)

Regards,

Tony