Re: [PATCH] drivers: altera_edac: Guard SDRAM irq2 retrieval for Arria10 only

["Nazle Asmade, Muhammad Nazim Amirul" <muhammad.nazim.amirul.nazle.asmade@altera.com>]

On 12/5/2026 7:25 pm, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/11/26 20:37, Nazle Asmade, Muhammad Nazim Amirul wrote:
>> On 11/5/2026 7:54 pm, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/26 02:52, muhammad.nazim.amirul.nazle.asmade@altera.com wrote:
>>>> From: Nazim Amirul <muhammad.nazim.amirul.nazle.asmade@altera.com>
>>>>
>>>> Guard the irq2 retrieval with an of_machine_is_compatible() check so
>>>> that platform_get_irq(pdev, 1) is only called on Arria10 platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nazim Amirul
>>>> <muhammad.nazim.amirul.nazle.asmade@altera.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Niravkumar L Rabara <nirav.rabara@altera.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/edac/altera_edac.c | 3 ++-
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>>>> index 4edd2088c2db..b30302198cd4 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>>>> @@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ static int altr_sdram_probe(struct platform_device
>>>> *pdev)
>>>>        }
>>>>        /* Arria10 has a 2nd IRQ */
>>>> -    irq2 = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
>>>> +    if (of_machine_is_compatible("altr,socfpga-arria10"))
>>>> +        irq2 = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
>>>>        layers[0].type = EDAC_MC_LAYER_CHIP_SELECT;
>>>>        layers[0].size = 1;
>>>
>>> Why? We already switch on arria10 later in the same function.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but NAK.
>>>
>>> Dinh
>> This driver were used by cyclone5 and arria10. Cyclone5 only has one
>> interrupt whereby arria10 has 2 interrupt. That is the reason why the
>> interrupt was guard by (of_machine_is_compatible("altr,socfpga-arria10"))
>>
> 
> Yes, but look at line 397,
> 
>            /* Only the Arria10 has separate IRQs */
>          if (of_machine_is_compatible("altr,socfpga-arria10")) {
>                  /* Arria10 specific initialization */
> 
> Dinh
> 
> 
Hi Dinh, That is true, but the one that we looking at now is at line 352 
which enabling the second interrupt and it is not required by cyclone5. 
Perhaps are you saying we should move the irq2 at line 352 under this 
line 397?