From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:05:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 3/5] OMAP4: hwmod data: add mailbox data In-Reply-To: References: <1296674843-12718-1-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> <1296674843-12718-4-git-send-email-omar.ramirez@ti.com> <4D5943A9.8010205@ti.com> Message-ID: <4D5AF8BA.8080403@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Omar, On 2/15/2011 10:55 PM, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote: > Hi Benoit, > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: >>> +static struct omap_hwmod_irq_info omap44xx_mailbox_irqs[] = { >>> + { .name = "mbox", .irq = 26 + OMAP44XX_IRQ_GIC_START, }, >> >> The original entry was unnamed since it is an unique entry and thus does not >> need to be differentiate on this platform. >> >> { .irq = 26 + OMAP44XX_IRQ_GIC_START }, >> >> Do you really need to have a name here? The strategy being to provide a name >> only if more than one entry exist. >> It is perfectibility doable, I'm just trying to understand your rational. > > It is this way instead of plain platform_get_irq because omap2420 has > two interrupt sources to MPU and mailbox driver uses > platform_get_irq_byname to get the irq number. This is what I was thinking, except that on OMAP2420 the names are: + { .name = "dsp", .irq = 26, }, + { .name = "iva", .irq = 34, }, and on OMAP2430 and OMAP3 + { .name = "dsp", .irq = 26, }, so why is it named "mbox" on OMAP4? If you have to do several platform_get_irq_byname to get this one, I'd prefer to get rid of that name for OMAP4. It will make mailbox irq consistent with the other hwmods. Thanks, Benoit