From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: buytenh@wantstofly.org (Lennert Buytenhek)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:28:35 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 15/54] ARM: ep93xx: irq_data conversion.
In-Reply-To: <4CF5963E.8060500@bluewatersys.com>
References: <cover.1291118519.git.buytenh@wantstofly.org>
	<20101130133639.GP15575@mail.wantstofly.org>
	<4CF55185.6010808@bluewatersys.com>
	<20101201001945.GI15575@mail.wantstofly.org>
	<4CF5963E.8060500@bluewatersys.com>
Message-ID: <20101214192835.GM15575@mail.wantstofly.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:26:38PM +1300, Ryan Mallon wrote:

> >>> -static int ep93xx_gpio_irq_type(unsigned int irq, unsigned int type)
> >>> +static int ep93xx_gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
> >>>  {
> >>> -	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_desc + irq;
> >>> -	const int gpio = irq_to_gpio(irq);
> >>> +	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_desc + d->irq;
> >>
> >> Is this still correct? I haven't followed much of the irq_data
> >> discussion, but this post (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/230221/)
> >> says that with sparse irq converting irq number to irq_desc is now a
> >> radix tree lookup.
> >>
> >> I get the impression from the above email that we should be avoiding
> >> using irq_desc directly in these functions?
> > 
> > You are correct in that this construct is no longer valid with
> > CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ.  It should be using irq_to_desc() instead, or
> > actually, it should not be looking at the irq_desc here at all.
> > 
> > What ep93xx wants to achieve should be possible to achieve by just
> > calling set_irq_handler() instead of frobbing fields in the irq_desc
> > directly -- that would work, right?
> 
> I think set_irq_handler should be okay. The other way would be to use
> irq_to_desc for the lookup.

I can do that, but that's really an orthogonal issue, and ought to be
a separate patch.

Are you OK with this patch as-is?