From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com (Miquel Raynal) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:32:11 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 07/17] irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: make irq_domain local In-Reply-To: <2f751e0a-857e-22ab-1748-5fd1cb127766@arm.com> References: <20180622151432.1566-1-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> <20180622151432.1566-8-miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> <2f751e0a-857e-22ab-1748-5fd1cb127766@arm.com> Message-ID: <20180629143211.4b4f827a@xps13> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Marc, Marc Zyngier wrote on Thu, 28 Jun 2018 13:10:05 +0100: > On 22/06/18 16:14, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Make the current MSI irq_domain local to ease the split between ICU > > platform device code and NSR platform device code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Petazzoni > > --- > > drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c > > index 3694c0d73c0d..607948870a14 100644 > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c > > @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ > > struct mvebu_icu { > > struct irq_chip irq_chip; > > struct regmap *regmap; > > - struct irq_domain *domain; > > struct device *dev; > > atomic_t initialized; > > }; > > @@ -218,6 +217,7 @@ static int mvebu_icu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > struct mvebu_icu *icu; > > struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; > > struct device_node *gicp_dn; > > + struct irq_domain *irq_domain; > > struct resource *res; > > void __iomem *regs; > > int i; > > @@ -282,11 +282,11 @@ static int mvebu_icu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > regmap_write(icu->regmap, ICU_INT_CFG(i), 0); > > } > > > > - icu->domain = > > + irq_domain = > > platform_msi_create_device_domain(&pdev->dev, ICU_MAX_IRQS, > > mvebu_icu_write_msg, > > &mvebu_icu_domain_ops, icu); > > nit: this really hurts my eyes. Please put the = sign and the function > call on a single line. I really don't care if it checkpatch is having a > fit because of that. I also dislike. Will change. > > > - if (!icu->domain) { > > + if (!irq_domain) { > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to create ICU domain\n"); > > return -ENOMEM; > > } > > > > But looking at the next patch, you might as well fold the two. On its > own, this patches is pretty pointless. Most often people ask to split logical changes as much as possible. But I have no problem squashing these two patches. Thanks, Miqu?l