Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] irqchip/ls-extirq: convert to a platform driver

Ioana Ciornei
2025-12-12T14:17:14Z

On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 10:51:12AM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for bringing this to me.
>
> Am Freitag, 12. Dezember 2025, 02:24:19 CET schrieb Thomas Gleixner:
> > On Fri, Dec 05 2025 at 17:57, Ioana Ciornei wrote:
> > > Since there is no need for ls-extirq to be initialized early, convert it
> > > to a proper platform driver. Instead of using IRQCHIP_DECLARE, add an
> > > of_device_id array with the same compatible strings as before. Also
> > > change the prototype and name of the probe function and adjust it to a
> > > platform_device structure.
> > >
> > > With this change we also have the added advantage of avoiding the
> > > irqchip_init() -> of_irq_init() code path which imposes dt checks that
> > > the ls-extirq does not comply with because of its improper use of the
> > > interrupt-map property.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1b1f04d8271e ("of/irq: Ignore interrupt parent for nodes without interrupts")
> >
> > I'm not seeing how that Fixes tag is related. Your changelog clearly
> > lacks a proper explanation.
> >
> > Aside of that there is this series:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/20251201105144.539450-1-alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com
> >
> > which is way more complete and cleans up the thing nicely instead of
> > just converting it to a platform driver with minimal effort.
>
> There is still one open question: How to deal with the scfg/isc nodes?
> Use patch 2/2 of this series to make them additional pm-busses or move the
> ls-ext-irq nodes outside of it?

To move the ls-extirq nodes outside of syscon means that we break
compatibility with the old device trees which I don't like.

I would much more prefer to use the approach in patch 2/2 of making the
scfg/isc nodes pm-busses.

Ioana