Re: [RFC] QT1070: change the trigger mode of QT1070
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hi Javier, On 5/11/2012 20:47, javier Martin wrote:
Hi, On 11 May 2012 13:33, Josh Wu<josh.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi, Javier On 5/11/2012 5:13 PM, javier Martin wrote:Hi all, let's take a chip which presents a similar issue like the pca953x . This chip has an IRQ line that is meant to be connected to a SoC input like the qt1070. The flags that are used for pca953x are: (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT) Can't we do the same for qt1070?I did a simple test in my board in 2.6.39, This flag doesn't work. But IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING works fine. So the question is what is different between this flag with IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING?I don't know but IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING works for me too.
There is no need to change the driver of QT1070. Please try the suggestion of Dmitry. Using the irq_set_irq_type() to set the trigger mode of the GPIO.
And even more important, can you give me an example of an architecture in mainline which cannot support these irq flags and still be able to detect a change from high to low in a GPIO as qt1070 requires?For now, AT91SAM9M10 can only detect GPIO input change, it cannot tell is falling or rising. So in theory it cannot support falling flags. The strange thing is, currently we use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE in 2.6.39 kernel for both AT91SAM9M10 and 9X5 chips, and they all work fine. So I need check the code of GPIO part.Moreover, if you try a grep for IRQ_TRIGGER_NONE in the kernel tree you won't find any driver doing this strange thing. Do you agree at least that we must change IRQ_TRIGGER_NONE flag into a more sensible choice?Yes. I agreed.Regards.  http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.3.4/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c#L495
-- 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