Re: OMAP: DSS2: Common IRQ handler for all OMAPs

[archit taneja <archit@ti.com>]

Copying Benoit,

On Tuesday 15 February 2011 02:07 PM, Valkeinen, Tomi wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 02:30 -0600, Taneja, Archit wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tuesday 15 February 2011 12:57 PM, Valkeinen, Tomi wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I meant something like this:
>>>
>>> dispc.c:
>>>
>>> dispc_init()
>>> {
>>> 	/* did we have a pdev for dispc? if not, this needs to be dss.pdev */
>>> 	request_irq(platform_get_irq(dispc.pdev, 0), irq_handler, IRQF_SHARED, "dispc irq", foo);
>>> }
>>>
>>> irq_handler()
>>> {
>>> 	if (irq_can_be_shared) {
>>> 		check if the irq is for us. exit if not;
>>> 	}
>>>
>>> 	handle;
>>> }
>>>
>>> dsi.c:
>>>
>>> dsi_init()
>>> {
>>> 	request_irq(platform_get_irq(dsi.pdev, 0), irq_handler, IRQF_SHARED, "dsi irq", foo);
>>> }
>>>
>>> irq_handler()
>>> {
>>> 	if (irq_can_be_shared) {
>>> 		check if the irq is for us. exit if not;
>>> 	}
>>>
>>> 	handle;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> This approach looks clean, but isn't IRQF_SHARED used the other way
>> around. One irq line and multiple handlers?
>
> That is the case here, isn't it (on omap3)? One interrupt line (the DSS
> irq, the same returned both from dsi.pdev and dispc.pdev), and two
> handlers, one in dispc and one in dsi? Or what do you mean?
>
> On omap2 there's no dsi code ran, so dispc is the only one requesting
> the irq, and thus IRQF_SHARED is extra. In omap4 there are separate irq
> lines (dsi.pdev and dispc.pdev return different irqs), and so
> IRQF_SHARED is again extra. But I don't see any harm in IRQF_SHARED even
> in omap2/4.
>
>   Tomi
>

Benoit,

Is it okay to have the same irq entry for 2 different hwmods?
This requirement comes from OMAP3 where dispc and dsi have a common irq 
line, where as on OMAP4 dispc and dsi have separate irq lines.

We basically want to get rid of a central dss irq handler (hence, remove 
irq entries for dss_core hwmod) and instead have separate irq handlers 
for each module which may or may not share an irq line.

Regards,
Archit