Re: [PATCH v3 08/17] irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: disociate ICU and NSR

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
	Haim Boot <hayim@marvell.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
	Nadav Haklai <nadavh@marvell.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Hanna Hawa <hannah@marvell.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/17] irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: disociate ICU and NSR
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:30:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180629143028.4059e860@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0d666052-b1f5-a27a-1bc8-fa3ede9e388a@arm.com>

Hi Marc,

[...]

> > -	/*
> > -	 * We're probed after MSI domains have been resolved, so force
> > -	 * resolution here.
> > -	 */
> > -	pdev->dev.msi_domain = of_msi_get_domain(&pdev->dev, node,
> > -						 DOMAIN_BUS_PLATFORM_MSI);
> > -	if (!pdev->dev.msi_domain)
> > -		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > -
> > -	gicp_dn = irq_domain_get_of_node(pdev->dev.msi_domain);
> > -	if (!gicp_dn)
> > -		return -ENODEV;
> > -
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Clean all ICU interrupts with type SPI_NSR, required to
> >  	 * avoid unpredictable SPI assignments done by firmware.
> > @@ -282,16 +297,9 @@ static int mvebu_icu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  			regmap_write(icu->regmap, ICU_INT_CFG(i), 0);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	irq_domain =
> > -		platform_msi_create_device_domain(&pdev->dev, ICU_MAX_IRQS,
> > -						  mvebu_icu_write_msg,
> > -						  &mvebu_icu_domain_ops, icu);
> > -	if (!irq_domain) {
> > -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to create ICU domain\n");
> > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > -	}
> > +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, icu);  
> 
> What is the upshot of passing this icu pointer as part of the platform
> device structure instead of simply passing it as a parameter? Is
> anything else using it?

Not at this stage of the series, but right after the patch
"irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: support ICU subnodes" does the following:

@@ -299,7 +356,10 @@ static int mvebu_icu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, icu);
 
-	return mvebu_icu_subset_probe(pdev);
+	if (icu->legacy_bindings)
+		return mvebu_icu_subset_probe(pdev);
+	else
+		return devm_of_platform_populate(&pdev->dev);
 }
  
Using driver data in both cases was, from my point of view, the easiest
(meanwhile, I'll simplify it thanks to another comment you made).

Thanks,
Miquèl

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
