From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jamie@jamieiles.com (Jamie Iles)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:30:50 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] versatile: don't generate a duplicate IRQ domain
In-Reply-To: <20120112232827.GP1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1325867997-20761-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com>
 <20120112203756.GM1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120112215801.GB13991@page>
 <20120112221454.GN1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <CACxGe6tz8UZEEKLcNKyqRvrjzX8jJ-qyrPZwOfgjS0+djaY1mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120112231811.GO1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120112232611.GB14007@page>
 <20120112232827.GP1068@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20120112233050.GC14007@page>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:28:27PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:26:11PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > No, because:
> > 
> > 	vic_init()
> > 	  __vic_init() -> with NULL np pointer
> > 	    vic_register()
> > 	
> > So we won't have the device_node for the VIC.  I think I really need to 
> > convert the versatile stuff over to the full of_irq_init() method of 
> > probing, which isn't as bad as I thought as everything is populated from 
> > the DT there but it looked like it could be registered statically too 
> > from versatile_init().  I'll try and get everything going from the DT 
> > now.
> 
> Won't this make Versatile a DT-only platform?

No, crap explanation by me there.  I'll add a versatile_dt_irq_init() 
that creates the controllers from the DT, for the non DT case everything 
will be as before using the static assignments and static irq_descs.  
I'll make sure to test using both booting methods.

Jamie