From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD) Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:09:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: at91: move at91 aic driver to drivers/irqchip In-Reply-To: <20130523120920.1df8e23a@skate> References: <1369299909-10078-1-git-send-email-b.brezillon@overkiz.com> <1369299909-10078-2-git-send-email-b.brezillon@overkiz.com> <20130523090611.GG9937@game.jcrosoft.org> <519DE6A8.6040502@overkiz.com> <20130523120920.1df8e23a@skate> Message-ID: <20130523100951.GH9937@game.jcrosoft.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12:09 Thu 23 May , Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear boris brezillon, > > On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:51:36 +0200, boris brezillon wrote: > > On 23/05/2013 11:06, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > On 11:05 Thu 23 May , Boris BREZILLON wrote: > > >> Move arch/arm/mach-at91/irq.c to drivers/irqchip/irq-at91.c. > > >> Move arch/arm/mach-at91/at91_aic.h to > > >> arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_aic.h to avoid ugly reference > > >> to header file : > > >> #include "../../arch/arm/mach-at91/at91_aic.h" > > > no we are going to drop arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach for multi support > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach is for removal > > What should be done ? > > > > include ../../arch/arm/mach-at91/at91_aic.h from irq-at91.c > > > > or > > > > move at91_aic.h into drivers/irqchips and patch every non dt board to > > include ../../../drivers/irqchip/at91_aic.h > > You can put it in , there are already a few > headers there. But I think it's not the right solution. > > *However*, ideally, this header should disappear completely. All the > register defines should go directly into the driver C file. The only > usage of the AIC defines outside of the IRQ driver are for debug prints > in the pm.c code, which I think you could get rid of. > > Ditto for the at91_aic_{read,write} macros. > > The NR_AIC5_IRQS can also move to the driver itself. > > The only remaining one would be NR_AIC_IRQS, you can't get rid of it, > because it's used for the IRQ priority arrays. But I believe keeping > this one in is reasonable. do want either as we expose the register acces for pm & co until this is cleanup NACK Best Regards, J.