From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marek.vasut@gmail.com (Marek Vasut)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:30:47 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 5/5 v2] ARM: pxa: Fix recursive call of
	pxa_(un)mask_low_gpio()
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikOUHOC2nrfKpcO=rE=CbdthvU0JxbCtOc1piSK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1294699993-4712-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<1294699993-4712-5-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikOUHOC2nrfKpcO=rE=CbdthvU0JxbCtOc1piSK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201101122330.47281.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wednesday 12 January 2011 00:16:50 Eric Miao wrote:
> The original intention is to re-use pxa_{mask,unmask}_irq(), will
> the change below looks better? The move of irq_base() is to avoid
> the error of function not declared.

Here's your :

Tested-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>

Tested on Zipit Z2
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> index a7deff5..6107253 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static inline int cpu_has_ipr(void)
>  	return !cpu_is_pxa25x();
>  }
> 
> +static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> +{
> +	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
> +		0x40d00000,
> +		0x40d0009c,
> +		0x40d00130,
> +	};
> +
> +	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> +}
> +
>  static void pxa_mask_irq(unsigned int irq)
>  {
>  	void __iomem *base = get_irq_chip_data(irq);
> @@ -108,25 +119,11 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
>  	GEDR0 = (1 << (irq - IRQ_GPIO0));
>  }
> 
> -static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> -{
> -	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> -
> -	desc->chip->mask(irq);
> -}
> -
> -static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> -{
> -	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> -
> -	desc->chip->unmask(irq);
> -}
> -
>  static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
>  	.name		= "GPIO-l",
>  	.ack		= pxa_ack_low_gpio,
> -	.mask		= pxa_mask_low_gpio,
> -	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_low_gpio,
> +	.mask		= pxa_mask_irq,
> +	.unmask		= pxa_unmask_irq,
>  	.set_type	= pxa_set_low_gpio_type,
>  };
> 
> @@ -141,6 +138,7 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t fn)
> 
>  	for (irq = IRQ_GPIO0; irq <= IRQ_GPIO1; irq++) {
>  		set_irq_chip(irq, &pxa_low_gpio_chip);
> +		set_irq_chip_data(irq, irq_base(0));
>  		set_irq_handler(irq, handle_edge_irq);
>  		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
>  	}
> @@ -148,17 +146,6 @@ static void __init pxa_init_low_gpio_irq(set_wake_t
> fn) pxa_low_gpio_chip.set_wake = fn;
>  }
> 
> -static inline void __iomem *irq_base(int i)
> -{
> -	static unsigned long phys_base[] = {
> -		0x40d00000,
> -		0x40d0009c,
> -		0x40d00130,
> -	};
> -
> -	return (void __iomem *)io_p2v(phys_base[i]);
> -}
> -
>  void __init pxa_init_irq(int irq_nr, set_wake_t fn)
>  {
>  	int irq, i, n;
> 
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Remove dead code as proposed by Sergei
> > 
> >  arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c |    8 ++------
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > index a7deff5..76e69cf 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/irq.c
> > @@ -110,16 +110,12 @@ static void pxa_ack_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> > 
> >  static void pxa_mask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> >  {
> > -       struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> > -
> > -       desc->chip->mask(irq);
> > +       pxa_mask_irq(irq);
> >  }
> > 
> >  static void pxa_unmask_low_gpio(unsigned int irq)
> >  {
> > -       struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> > -
> > -       desc->chip->unmask(irq);
> > +       pxa_unmask_irq(irq);
> >  }
> > 
> >  static struct irq_chip pxa_low_gpio_chip = {
> > --
> > 1.7.2.3