From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:54:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 01/16] irqchip: add basic infrastructure In-Reply-To: <50AC06F0.5070402@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1353448867-15008-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1353448867-15008-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <50AC06F0.5070402@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20121120235454.78fb7065@skate> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Stephen, On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:40:48 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren > > That still stands as: > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren > > ... although I think in this case the implementation changed enough it > probably shouldn't have been kept in v4. Indeed, my apologies. I was seeing some interest in this irqchip thing in the recent days, and I wanted to show some of the progress but have been quite busy with the mvebu development. So I was quite certainly a bit too quick. > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig > > > +config IRQCHIP > > I wonder if it should be IRQCHIP_OF, since it's OF-specific? > > > + def_bool y > > + depends on OF_IRQ > > For the drivers/clocksource patch I created, I required the > architecture/machine config option to select it rather than making it a > def_bool. Would that be better? I suppose if it's going to be selected > in a lot of places anyway, and since the code will just be dropped if it > isn't used, then making it default to on is reasonable though. Well, Rob Herring suggesting this def_bool y originally, I think it makes sense as all new DT platforms will most likely this mechanism for their IRQ driver. But if people feel like having a per-platform 'select IRQCHIP', I'm fine as well. > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h > > > @@ -493,7 +502,8 @@ > > DEV_DISCARD(init.rodata) \ > > CPU_DISCARD(init.rodata) \ > > MEM_DISCARD(init.rodata) \ > > - KERNEL_DTB() > > + KERNEL_DTB() \ > > + IRQCHIP_OF_MATCH_TABLE() > > Does it make sense to put that before KERNEL_DTB()? I did in my > drivers/clocksource patch just in case anything depended on KERNEL_DTB > being last along the lines of APPENDED_DTB. That said, now that I think > about it, nothing really should depend on the order... I haven't thought about this, and I actually booted an APPENDED_DTB kernel with this IRQCHIP_OF_MATCH_TABLE thing on Armada XP, and it worked. I admit I haven't looked in details at what this KERNEL_DTB() thing was. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com