Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] mfd: pm8921: Migrate to irqdomains

Stephen Boyd
2014-01-06T20:33:46Z

On 01/06/14 07:53, Lee Jones wrote:
>
>> @@ -56,8 +56,7 @@
>> struct pm_irq_chip {
>> struct device *dev;
>> spinlock_t pm_irq_lock;
>> - unsigned int devirq;
>> - unsigned int irq_base;
>> + struct irq_domain *domain;
> It's probably best to explicitly specify 'irqdomain' here in order to
> eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.

Ok. Renamed.

>
>> unsigned int num_irqs;
>> unsigned int num_blocks;
>> unsigned int num_masters;
>> @@ -138,7 +137,7 @@ static int pm8xxx_irq_block_handler(struct pm_irq_chip *chip, int block)
>> for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
>> if (bits & (1 << i)) {
>> pmirq = block * 8 + i;
>> - irq = pmirq + chip->irq_base;
>> + irq = irq_find_mapping(chip->domain, pmirq);
> Going by this patch only, it appears you're calling irq_find_mapping()
> before you've called irq_create_mapping(). This won't work, so unless
> you've called the latter in a previous patch, you should ensure that
> you do so.
>

Interrupts seem to work. I think that's because the mapping is created
when the consumer drivers call request_irq().

>From what I can tell, if we call irq_find_mapping() and there is no
mapping associated with it then we have a spurious irq. If that happens
we'll call handle_generic_irq() with 0 and that will cause
handle_bad_irq() to be called and a debug message to be logged. That
seems like a good outcome.

>> - master = block / 8;
> What was the point in this anyway? Was it completely superfluous?

I think it was just copy/paste without thinking if the variables are
actually used.

>
>> +static int pm8xxx_irq_init(struct platform_device *pdev, unsigned int irq)
>> +{
>> + struct pm_irq_chip *chip;
>> + unsigned int nirqs = 256;
> No magic numbers please.

Done.

>
>> + chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip) + sizeof(u8) * nirqs,
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
> What does the sizeof(u8) add here?
>

This was just keeping the same code that was already there. I will do
sizeof(chip->config[0]) instead which is more future proof if that array
changes type later on.

>
>> + return of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
>> +}
> Can't you use the MFD core instead?
>

Are you suggesting using mfd_add_devices()? At first glance it looks
like that would require an array of mfd_cell structures that do nothing
besides match compatible strings in the DT. Using of_platform_populate()
achieves the same goal and doesn't require an array of mfd_cell
structures for each different pm8xxx chip that comes along, meaning
simpler code.

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,