From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner)
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:47:25 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [PATCH v5 06/27] irq_domain/powerpc: eliminate irq_map; use
 irq_alloc_desc() instead
In-Reply-To: <1334180248.2984.39.camel@pasglop>
References: <1329383368-12122-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
 <1329383368-12122-7-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
 <m2iphj3zxr.fsf@igel.home> <m2hax2qeqs.fsf@igel.home>
 <20120402202848.1EB833E02A7@localhost>
 <20120402215524.GM24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1333406005.30734.61.camel@pasglop>
 <20120402225223.GN24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1333409927.30734.62.camel@pasglop> <m24nsx9iz1.fsf@igel.home>
 <1333755470.3040.38.camel@pasglop> <m2aa2n7mmw.fsf@igel.home>
 <1334106834.2984.17.camel@pasglop> <1334107996.2984.20.camel@pasglop>
 <1334122182.2984.33.camel@pasglop> <20120411205707.68AC13E08B6@localhost>
 <1334180248.2984.39.camel@pasglop>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1204112347040.2542@ionos>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org


On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 14:57 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, I've got a different way to fix it though.  There is exactly one
> > user of irq_virq_count in-tree right now: PS3.  Also, irq_virq_count
> > is only useful for the NOMAP mapping.  So, instead of having a single
> > global irq_virq_count values, I've dropped it entirely and added a
> > max_irq argument to irq_domain_add_nomap().  That makes it a property
> > of an individual nomap irq domain instead of a global system settting.
> > 
> > Hopefully I'll have a draft patch ready today. 
> 
> That works for me. I'll send patches for cleanup MPIC as well.
> 
> One thing tho (Thomas, Russell) is that I like using set_irq_trigger to
> establish the "defaults" in mpic, ie, it does the descriptor locking
> etc... for me, I'd rather avoid open coding all of that. What I need is
> a "variant" that doesn't actually change the trigger but instead
> initializes the irq_desc with whatever settings the HW currently has
> (ie, I need to make sure things are properly in sync) though other
> implementations may want to use that for defaults.
> 
> Any objection to defining something like IRQ_TYPE_DEFAULT ?
> 
> I was thinking about making it equal to IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK since that
> can obviously not be a valid trigger value and is distinct from
> IRQ_TYPE_NONE.

No objections.