Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: davinci: define gpio interrupts as separate resources

J, KEERTHY
2018-11-20T06:39:54Z

On 11/20/2018 2:22 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On 13/11/18 7:20 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>>
>> Since commit eb3744a2dd01 ("gpio: davinci: Do not assume continuous
>> IRQ numbering") the davinci GPIO driver fails to probe if we boot
>> in legacy mode from any of the board files. Since the driver now
>> expects every interrupt to be defined as a separate resource, split
>> the definition in devices-da8xx.c instead of having a single continuous
>> interrupt range.
>>
>> Fixes: eb3744a2dd01 ("gpio: davinci: Do not assume continuous IRQ numbering")
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>
> There are a number of other boards that need such fixing too. And the
> commit in question does not do a good job of explaining why it was
> needed in the first place. The description just repeats what can be
> inferred by reading the patch.

Cc Lokesh

Sekhar,

DT explicitly mentions every IRQ number. The patch in discussion
explicitly calls platform_get_irq for all the interrupts which to me is
the right thing to do as: platform_get_irq-->
of_irq_get-->irq_create_of_mapping--> sequence is to be done for every IRQ.

k3-am654 definitely will need explicit calls to platform_get_irq as it
will be involving interrupt router and interrupt numbers need not be
continuous.

So i do not think reverting the patch is the right idea.

Regards,
Keerthy

>
>
> gpio: davinci: Do not assume continuous IRQ numbering
>
> Currently the driver assumes that the interrupts are continuous
> and does platform_get_irq only once and assumes the rest are continuous,
> instead call platform_get_irq for all the interrupts and store them
> in an array for later use.
>
> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
> Reviewed-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>
>
> Can we revert the offending commit instead?
>
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
>