Re: [PATCH v3 13/25] irq_domain: Remove 'new' irq_domain in favourof the ppc one

[Grant Likely]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 03:48:09PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> Hi Grant,
> 
> I finally had the time to rebase most of the OMAP3 and OMAP4 DT
> patches on your latest irq_domain series and found a couple of
> minors regressions that breaks OMAP3 boot.
> 
> On 1/27/2012 10:36 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> >index e04e04dd..aab236f 100644
> >--- a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> >+++ b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> >@@ -263,8 +263,6 @@ struct twl_client {
> >
> >  static struct twl_client twl_modules[TWL_NUM_SLAVES];
> >
> >-static struct irq_domain domain;
> >-
> >  /* mapping the module id to slave id and base address */
> >  struct twl_mapping {
> >  	unsigned char sid;	/* Slave ID */
> >@@ -1225,14 +1223,8 @@ twl_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> >
> >  	pdata->irq_base = status;
> >  	pdata->irq_end = pdata->irq_base + nr_irqs;
> >-
> >-	domain.irq_base = pdata->irq_base;
> >-	domain.nr_irq = nr_irqs;
> >-#ifdef CONFIG_OF_IRQ
> >-	domain.of_node = of_node_get(node);
> >-	domain.ops =&irq_domain_simple_ops;
> >-#endif
> >-	irq_domain_add(&domain);
> >+	irq_domain_add_legacy(node, nr_irqs, pdata->irq_base, 0,
> >+			&irq_domain_simple_ops);
> 
> This commit cannot build due to the missing last parameter.
> 
> And in fact you fixed that in the next commit (#14), but the will
> break git bisect and anyway that fix does not really belong to this
> commit.
> 
> [PATCH v3 14/25] irq_domain: Remove irq_domain_add_simple()
> 
>  	irq_domain_add_legacy(node, nr_irqs, pdata->irq_base, 0,
> -			      &irq_domain_simple_ops);
> +			      &irq_domain_simple_ops, NULL);

Good catch, thanks.  I'll update the series to fix that.

> 
> 
> Moreover, it looks like this new irq_domain code is checking the
> number of hwirq and is not as lazy as the previous one :-)
> 
> Because of that and because of the wrong number of IRQs I put for
> the twl4030 :-(, it does not handle properly the children of the
> twl4030 now and print a big warning at boot time due to the
> following check.
> 
>   WARN_ON(hwirq < first_hwirq || hwirq >= first_hwirq + size)

Good! The warning is doing it's job.  :-)

> In fact 8 was just the number for the core functionality, but that
> chip does have some other interrupts for sub function like GPIOs and
> power events.

Okay, I'll add this patch to the series before patch 13.

> 
> With the following fix, it works fine.
> 
> Regards,
> Benoit
> 
> 
> ---
> From 12781619d2ab8d6d724acabc6873954f0f9f4347 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@xxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:58:17 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] mfd: twl-core.c: Fix the number of interrupts
> managed by twl4030
> 
> TWL4030 does handle 3 different interrupts ranges: 8 for the core, 8
> for the power events and 18 for the GPIOs.
> 
> Change the total number of interrupts managed by TWL4030 from 8 to 34.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@xxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/mfd/twl-core.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> index e63b408..66f9bff 100644
> --- a/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mfd/twl-core.c
> @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@
> 
>  #define TWL_MODULE_LAST TWL4030_MODULE_LAST
> 
> -#define TWL4030_NR_IRQS    8
> +#define TWL4030_NR_IRQS    34 /* core:8, power:8, gpio: 18 */
>  #define TWL6030_NR_IRQS    20
> 
>  /* Base Address defns for twl4030_map[] */
> -- 
> 1.7.0.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
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/