Re: [PATCH v2] irq_domain/microblaze: Convert microblaze to use irq_domains

[Michal Simek <monstr-pSz03upnqPeHXe+LvDLADg@public.gmane.org>]

Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:59:34PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> From: Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> Move get_irq to asm/irq.h from hardirq.h.
>>
>> Grant: Why does your patch setup NR_IRQS to 64? It seems to me
>> pretty big value because intc support up to 32 interrupts.
>> The main problem was with get_irq function because there must
>> check status of IVR.
> 
> It doesn't really need to do that.  I can drop that change, but you
> will need to either enable sparse irq or make that number larger if
> you ever set up cascaded interrupt controllers.

I have never seen cascaded interrupt controllers on Microblaze system
that's why it is better to have simpler/faster code.

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <monstr-pSz03upnqPeHXe+LvDLADg@public.gmane.org>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
>> Cc: John Williams <john.williams-g5w7nrANp4BDPfheJLI6IQ@public.gmane.org>
>> Cc: John Linn <john.linn-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> ---
>> This builds on top of my irq_domain tree:
>> git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 irqdomain/next
>>
>> v2: Turn off SPARSE_IRQ because we don't need it.
> 
> Is this all that you changed?  Do I need to drop the version in my
> tree to pick up this version of the patch, or am I okay to simply drop
> the SPARSE_IRQ hunk?
> 

Not only that. In second email you see that changes about concurrent irq.

Thanks,
Michal


-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian