Re: [PATCH 00/16] gpio: Tight IRQ chip integration and banked infrastructure

[Tony Lindgren]

* Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> [170915 08:10]:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Sorry about that. Let's move ahead with this now, it is neat and
> > clean.
> > 
> > What I want (as maintainer) is a bit of fingerpointing at the drivers
> > that need to be converted to use the new banking infrastructure
> > so they don't stay with their old crappy design pattern. OMAP is
> > a clear candidate right? (Added Tony to CC...)
> 
> OMAP should be able to use this infrastructure, but it may not want to
> because the semantics would change slightly. Currently OMAP registers a
> GPIO chip for each bank, whereas this infrastructure exposes multiple
> banks via a single chip.

Oh so you don't have separate interrupts for the instances?
Thanks for clarifying that.

> There might be some userspace that relies on the existence of multiple
> chips, but Tony can probably knows that better than I.

On omaps, each bank is a separate driver instance with it's own
interrupt. Maybe really all we need to do is get rid of the "bank"
naming, I think that's left over from 15 years ago when we did not
have separate driver instances. It seems we should s/bank/ddata/
on the driver to avoid confusion.

Grygorii, any comments?

Regards,

Tony