Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: pl061: enable interrupts with DT stylebinding

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 08:44:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 08:36 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:31:39AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > ...
> >> -static void __init pl061_init_gc(struct pl061_gpio *chip, int irq_base)
> >> +static void __init pl061_init_gc(struct pl061_gpio *chip,
> >> +				 struct device_node *node, int irq_base)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct irq_chip_type *ct;
> >>  
> >> @@ -212,15 +212,17 @@ static void __init pl061_init_gc(struct pl061_gpio *chip, int irq_base)
> >>  	ct->chip.irq_set_wake = irq_gc_set_wake;
> >>  	ct->regs.mask = GPIOIE;
> >>  
> >> -	irq_setup_generic_chip(chip->irq_gc, IRQ_MSK(PL061_GPIO_NR),
> >> -			       IRQ_GC_INIT_NESTED_LOCK, IRQ_NOREQUEST, 0);
> >> +	irq_setup_generic_chip_domain(chip->irq_gc, node,
> >> +				      IRQ_MSK(PL061_GPIO_NR),
> >> +				      IRQ_GC_INIT_NESTED_LOCK,
> >> +				      IRQ_NOREQUEST, 0);
> >>  }
> > 
> > The function irq_setup_generic_chip_domain() is wrapped by
> > #ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN in patch #1.  Is it true that pl061 driver
> > will never work with !IRQ_DOMAIN case?
> 
> You're right unless Grant thinks IRQ_DOMAIN should always be enabled for
> ARM? Otherwise, I'll add something like this for !IRQ_DOMAIN:

I think always having IRQ_DOMAIN on are is where we want to get to; or at least
have platforms that use it depend on it or select it.  I don't want to see
interrupt controllers both use irq_domain and also their own open-coded
translation mechanism.  That's just a fail.

If irq_domain isn't acceptable to be enabled all the time, then it needs to be
refactored until it is.

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/