From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161032Ab3BGR7p (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:59:45 -0500 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:55528 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161016Ab3BGR7n (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:59:43 -0500 Message-ID: <5113EB8B.4060002@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:59:39 -0700 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Jones CC: Anmar Oueja , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linus Walleij , Stephen Warren , Linus Walleij , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/14] pinctrl/abx500: use direct IRQ defines References: <1360093715-6348-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <1360093715-6348-10-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <5112F1B9.6010700@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/07/2013 02:01 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > I don't see myself on cc. Was that intentional? The original patch was that way; I assume git send-email only CC'd you on patches written by you. > I quite like the idea of this. > > Stephen, > > It doesn't mean the other patch was wrong, it just transfers the math. Ah, I see. The issue is that the code below clearly calculates the hwirq differently, and it wasn't immediately obvious that this part of the patch for example: > struct abx500_gpio_irq_cluster ab8500_gpio_irq_cluster[] = { > - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, 34), > - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, 24), > - GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, 14), > + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(6, 13, AB8500_INT_GPIO6R), > + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(24, 25, AB8500_INT_GPIO24R), > + GPIO_IRQ_CLUSTER(36, 41, AB8500_INT_GPIO36R), > }; ... actually changes the values in the table (AB8500_INT_GPIO6R is 40, so when using that value, you need to subtract of the value 6 for the base to get the original 34). > I wouldn't squash it into mine. I like the transition and the > possibility to revert it if there's been some mistake. > > (not to say there is one, but just in case.) > > Sent from my mobile Linux device. > > On Feb 7, 2013 12:14 AM, "Stephen Warren" > wrote: > > On 02/05/2013 12:48 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > From: Linus Walleij > > > > > Make it harder to do mistakes by introducing the actual > > defined ABx500 IRQ number into the IRQ cluster definitions. > > Deduct cluster offset from the GPIO offset to make each > > cluster coherent. > > Shouldn't this patch be squashed into the previous patch to avoid churn? > > > static struct abx500_pinctrl_soc_data ab9540_soc = { > > > @@ -273,8 +273,7 @@ static int abx500_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip > *chip, unsigned offset) > > > - hwirq = gpio + cluster->to_irq; > > - > > + hwirq = gpio - cluster->start + cluster->to_irq; > > return > irq_create_mapping(pct->parent->domain, hwirq); > > In particular, this change implies that the previous patch was simply > incorrect, although I haven't really thought about it in detail. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >