Re: qt1070: Why IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE?
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hi all, thank you for your comments. On 4 May 2012 04:07, Shen, Voice <Voice.Shen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jean, > Thank you for your information. Although the irq_flag can not be added into "struct i2c_board_info" till now, I will try to find other solution. > > Thanks again. > > Hi Javier, > As to the IRQ flag depends on SOC. We try to find other solution. Please describe you issue in detail. And what's the mode does your SOC support. As I stated, with the current 'IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE' flag, this driver doesn't work in i.MX27. Furthermore, I don't think it works on any platform since as you previously pointed according to the datasheet of qt1070, we can use either IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING or IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW. But I don't know what is the sense of using 'IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE' here. My SoC, an i.MX27, theoretically supports both RQF_TRIGGER_FALLING and IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW but I've only tested the former. If we take a look at a similar device, a pca953x they simply use the following flags: (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT) http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.3.4/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c#L495 We could do the same here. It's true there can be SoC's which doesn't support IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW flag, but if this is the case it means they don't support this HW feature then. So you are not breaking anything. > Best Regards, > Voice Shen > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean Delvare [mailto:khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 14:15 申波 > To: Shen, Voice > Cc: Wu, Josh; javier Martin; linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wolfram Sang; Axel Lin; Dmitry Torokhov > Subject: Re: qt1070: Why IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE? > > On Thu, 3 May 2012 05:15:14 +0000, Shen, Voice wrote: >> Hi All, >> Some information as following, >> >> According to the datasheet of qt1070, we can use IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING or IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW (I think this is the best) for IRQ flag. However, the IRQ line is a GPIO of a SOC. Some SOC can detect the level change of the GPIO, while can not distinguish the falling or rising. So, the IRQ flag depends on the trigger mode of GPIO line. >> >> Maybe use the "flags" element in "struct i2c_board_info" to pass the IRQ flag, or add another element named "irqflags" into "struct i2c_board_info". I think this will be better, but I am not sure whether this is a good solution. > > i2c_board_info.flags is for I2C client flags, please do not abuse it > for IRQ information. > > I have no objection to an irq_flag member being added, however I > remember past discussions where people argued whether it was the right > thing to do or whether the IRQ mode was best set by platform > initialization code. Part of that discussion was archived here: > http://marc.info/?t=128743170300002&r=1&w=2 > Said discussion did not result in any code being merged as I don't > think we came to an agreement. Feel free to restart the discussion with > the interested people. > > -- > Jean Delvare -- Javier Martin Vista Silicon S.L. CDTUC - FASE C - Oficina S-345 Avda de los Castros s/n 39005- Santander. Cantabria. Spain +34 942 25 32 60 www.vista-silicon.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html