Re: [PATCH v2] irqdomain: Initialize number of IRQs for simple domains

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2125 bytes --]

* Jamie Iles wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:24:11AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > The irq_domain_add() function needs the number of interrupts in the
> > domain to properly initialize them. In addition the allocated domain
> > is now returned by the irq_domain_{add,generate}_simple() helpers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> > Acked-by: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> > Note: This patch should not be applied yet. There is a conflict with a
> >       pending patch[0] by Benoit Cousson that will obsolete the OMAP2
> >       hunk in this patch.
> > 
> >       [0]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg62124.html
> 
> I also have a patch in Russell's tracker to remove one of the calls for 
> versatile (for the VIC) that is no longer needed.

Okay, I'll take a note. I guess it is okay for this patch to go in only after
the conflicting patches have all been applied. I'm assuming that sooner or
later those patches will land in linux-next and I can rebase this patch on
top, right?

> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx51-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx51-dt.c
> > index e6bad17..811ce88 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx51-dt.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx51-dt.c
> > @@ -47,7 +47,12 @@ static const struct of_dev_auxdata imx51_auxdata_lookup[] __initconst = {
> >  static int __init imx51_tzic_add_irq_domain(struct device_node *np,
> >  				struct device_node *interrupt_parent)
> >  {
> > -	irq_domain_add_simple(np, 0);
> > +	struct irq_domain *domain;
> > +
> > +	domain = irq_domain_add_simple(np, 0, TZIC_NUM_IRQS);
> > +	if (!domain)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> 
> A real nit, but could this be written as:
> 
> 	return irq_domain_add_simple(np, 0, TZIC_NUM_IRQS) ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
> 
> to make it a little more concise (and the same for the others)?  Not a 
> big deal though, so either way:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>

Yes, I can do that.

Thanks,
Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]