From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com (Marc Gonzalez) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:58:07 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH v3] irqchip: Add support for Tango interrupt controller In-Reply-To: References: <569CE0F2.1060507@sigmadesigns.com> <569D0B80.1010908@sigmadesigns.com> <569D165E.4060004@sigmadesigns.com> <569FAFF5.4090909@arm.com> <569FB471.8000909@arm.com> <569FB7A9.9080309@sigmadesigns.com> <569FB91D.9030704@sigmadesigns.com> Message-ID: <56A2518F.6060808@sigmadesigns.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 20/01/2016 19:09, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Marc Gonzalez writes: > >> On 20/01/2016 17:38, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> >>> Marc Gonzalez writes: >>> >>>> On 20/01/2016 17:25, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >>>> >>>>> Marc Zyngier writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 20/01/16 16:10, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Marc Zyngier writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", &ctl)) >>>>>>>>> + panic("%s: failed to get reg base", node->name); >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + chip = kzalloc(sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL); >>>>>>>>> + chip->ctl = ctl; >>>>>>>>> + chip->base = base; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said before, this assumes the outer DT node uses a ranges >>>>>>> property. Normally reg properties work the same whether they specify an >>>>>>> offset within an outer "ranges" or have a full address directly. It >>>>>>> would be easy enough to make this work with either, so I don't see any >>>>>>> reason not to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yup, that is a good point. I guess Marc can address this in the next >>>>>> round, since we need a DT binding anyway. >>>>> >>>>> I'd suggest using of_address_to_resource() on both nodes and subtracting >>>>> the start addresses returned. >>>> >>>> For my own reference, Marc Zyngier suggested: >>>> "you should use of_iomap to map the child nodes, and not mess with >>>> the parent one." >>> >>> That's going to get very messy since the generic irqchip code needs all >>> the registers as offsets from a common base address. >> >> The two suggestions are over my head at the moment. >> >> Do you want to submit v4 and have Marc Z take a look? > > Done. If this isn't acceptable either, I'm out of ideas that don't end > up being far uglier than anything suggested so far. With your latest patch, can I drop the ranges property? Regards.