On Friday 05 September 2014 07:53:16 Weike Chen wrote:

 
-	irq_set_chained_handler(irq, dwapb_irq_handler);
-	irq_set_handler_data(irq, gpio);
+	if (!pp->irq_shared) {
+		irq_set_chained_handler(pp->irq, dwapb_irq_handler);
+		irq_set_handler_data(pp->irq, gpio);
+	} else {
+		/*
+		 * Request a shared IRQ since where MFD would have devices
+		 * using the same irq pin
+		 */
+		err = devm_request_irq(gpio->dev, pp->irq,
+				       dwapb_irq_handler_mfd,
+				       IRQF_SHARED, "gpio-dwapb-mfd", gpio);
+		if (err) {
+			dev_err(gpio->dev, "error requesting IRQ\n");
+			irq_domain_remove(gpio->domain);
+			gpio->domain = NULL;
+			return;
+		}
+	}

I think this need some better documentation. Why is it safe to use
devm_request_irq rather than irq_set_chained_handler here?

 
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
+
+static struct dwapb_platform_data *
+dwapb_gpio_get_pdata_of(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct device_node *node, *port_np;
+	struct dwapb_platform_data *pdata;
+	struct dwapb_port_property *pp;
+	int nports;
+	int i;
+
+	node = dev->of_node;
+	if (!node)
+		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);

Please replace the #ifdef above with 

	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) || !node)

here so get you proper compile-time coverage of the DT code path.

	Arnd