quoted
quoted
- 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?
Usually it is preferred to use irq_set_chained_handler() for the chained handler
so the handler does not show up in /proc/interrupts.
This requires an exclusive non-shared handler which is not the case on the intel
platform. So they have to use devm_request_irq() instead.
Yes, for Intel Quark, it has a single PCI function exporting a GPIO and I2C controller, and
the irq is shared by GPIO and I2C, so we need shared irq as the comments said.