Re: [PATCH 0/6] General device tree irq domain infrastructure

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > As for the mapping, I agree that the functionality is generally
>> > useful, I'm just not fond of the current implementation.  I think it
>> > is more complex than it needs to be and I'm not excited about bring it
>> > over to the other architectures as-is.
>>
>> Nobody cares about the current implementation. What is important is
>> indeed the functionality. The basic thing I think everybody agrees is
>> that you need to extend the irq_desc (or data, whatever tglx prefers)
>> with two bits of information: Some identifier of the domain and some
>> identifier of the interrupt number within that domain.
>
> irq_data because that's what is handed into the callbacks and you
> probably want to have the HW number there.

Okay, I'll take another hack at it.  Unfortunately I've got a great
big unmaskable interrupt in the form of UDS next week, but I'll be
back on it the week after.

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/