From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Santosh Shilimkar Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: OMAP4+: Correct L3 interrupts Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:55:33 +0530 Message-ID: <515E8A7D.8000401@ti.com> References: <1365098790-9078-1-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <515E6EAE.9000107@ti.com> <515E8677.40404@ti.com> <515E89BA.9010709@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:38239 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751799Ab3DEIXj (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 04:23:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <515E89BA.9010709@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Benoit Cousson Cc: Jon Hunter , Tony Lindgren , device-tree , linux-omap , linux-arm On Friday 05 April 2013 01:52 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote: > Santosh and Jon, > > On 04/05/2013 10:08 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote: >> On 04/05/2013 08:26 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>> On Thursday 04 April 2013 11:36 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> The L3 interrupt numbers are incorrect for OMAP4+ and are conflicting >>>> with some of the timer interrupts causing the allocation of timer >>>> interrupts to fail. >>>> >>>> The problem is caused by adding 32 to the interrupt number for the L3 >>>> interrupts to account for per processor interrupts (PPI) and software >>>> generated interrupts (SGI) which typically are mapped to the first 32 >>>> interrupts in the ARM GIC. This is not necessary because the first >>>> parameter of the ARM GIC interrupt property specifies the GIC interrupt >>>> type (ie. SGI, PPI, etc). Hence, fix the interrupt number fo the L3 >>>> interrupts by substracting 32. >>>> >>>> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar >>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Please note that this problem is observed in Benoit's for_3.10/dts branch [1]. >>>> >>>> [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/bcousson/linux-omap-dt.git >>>> >>> Thats correct. I overlooked the 32 addition part. This patch should >>> also be pulled into Benoit's 3.10 tree. >> >> Done. I've just applied it. But I will probably merge it with the >> original patch, because having a broken patch and the fix in the same >> pull request does not look right. > > Please find below the fixed version. > Thanks Benoit. Patch looks fine to me. Regards, Santosh