On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Timur Tabi [off-list ref] wrote:

On 9/21/17 7:08 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

I guess gpio_valid_mask would take precedence over irq_valid_mask.
I.e if the GPIO is not valid then the IRQ is per definition not valid
either.

Since it is a new thing, we can simply define a semantic like that
and document it.

So what about my current patches?

I am waiting for the maintainer, Bjorn Andersson, to provide review.

 I hope you're not asking me to rewrite
them again.

I don't understand your remark. If you are impatient, such is life.

What is your response to Stephen's comment:

[Stephen Boyd]
Perhaps we can add another hook for our purposes here that
tells gpiolib that the gpio is not usable and to skip it. The
semantics would be clear, it's just about probing availability of
this pin as a gpio and doesn't mux any pins.

I think this kind of related to my response (after I realized it
was not just about IRQs):

Doesn't that mean we need something like irq_valid_mask but rather
gpio_valid_mask that just block all usage of certain GPIOs?

Yours,
Linus Walleij