From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:14:51 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 01/10] omap: Use separate init_irq functions to avoid
	cpu_is_omap tests early
In-Reply-To: <874o6lg8cv.fsf@ti.com>
References: <20110328221501.4046.41079.stgit@baageli.muru.com>
	<20110328222128.4046.70846.stgit@baageli.muru.com>
	<874o6lg8cv.fsf@ti.com>
Message-ID: <20110329171451.GI4016@atomide.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

* Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> [110329 10:08]:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> writes:
> 
> > This allows us to remove cpu_is_omap calls from init_irq functions
> > and the irq handler. There should not be any need for cpu_is_omap
> > as at this point we only care about SoC generation, and not about
> > subcategories.
> >
> > The main reason for the patch is that we want to initialize only
> > minimal omap specific code from the init_early call, and this and
> > the following patches get us closer to that goal.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> 
> [...]
> 
> A couple of minor comments on naming below...
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c
> > index bc524b9..33a5c0d 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c
> > @@ -103,28 +103,36 @@ static void omap_ack_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> >  	intc_bank_write_reg(0x1, &irq_banks[0], INTC_CONTROL);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline void _omap_mask_irq(int irq)
> > +{
> > +	int offset = irq & (~(IRQ_BITS_PER_REG - 1));
> > +	irq &= (IRQ_BITS_PER_REG - 1);
> > +	intc_bank_write_reg(1 << irq, &irq_banks[0], INTC_MIR_SET0 + offset);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void omap_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned int irq = d->irq;
> > -	int offset = irq & (~(IRQ_BITS_PER_REG - 1));
> >  
> > -	if (cpu_is_omap34xx() && !cpu_is_ti816x()) {
> > -		int spurious = 0;
> > +	_omap_mask_irq(irq);
> > +}
> >  
> > -		/*
> > -		 * INT_34XX_GPT12_IRQ is also the spurious irq. Maybe because
> > -		 * it is the highest irq number?
> > -		 */
> > -		if (irq == INT_34XX_GPT12_IRQ)
> > -			spurious = omap_check_spurious(irq);
> > +static void omap_mask_irq_omap3(struct irq_data *d)
> 
> how about omap3_mask_irq().
> 
> In most other code we're using the SoC name as a prefix instead of
> suffix.
> 
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int irq = d->irq;
> > +	int spurious = 0;
> >  
> > -		if (!spurious)
> > -			previous_irq = irq;
> > -	}
> > +	/*
> > +	 * INT_34XX_GPT12_IRQ is also the spurious irq. Maybe because
> > +	 * it is the highest irq number?
> > +	 */
> > +	if (irq == INT_34XX_GPT12_IRQ)
> > +		spurious = omap_check_spurious(irq);
> >  
> > -	irq &= (IRQ_BITS_PER_REG - 1);
> > +	if (!spurious)
> > +		previous_irq = irq;
> >  
> > -	intc_bank_write_reg(1 << irq, &irq_banks[0], INTC_MIR_SET0 + offset);
> > +	_omap_mask_irq(irq);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void omap_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> > @@ -143,6 +151,12 @@ static void omap_mask_ack_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> >  	omap_ack_irq(d);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void omap_mask_ack_irq_omap3(struct irq_data *d)
> 
> Also here: omap3_mask_ack_irq()

Sounds good to me.

Tony