From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58061) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnqkg-0003vX-RT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:06:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RnqkZ-00072q-DF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:05:58 -0500 Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:58568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RnqkZ-00072g-B1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:05:51 -0500 Received: by qabg40 with SMTP id g40so2151102qab.4 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:05:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1326961896-25420-2-git-send-email-e.voevodin@samsung.com> References: <1326961896-25420-1-git-send-email-e.voevodin@samsung.com> <1326961896-25420-2-git-send-email-e.voevodin@samsung.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:05:50 +0000 Message-ID: From: Peter Maydell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v8 1/8] ARM: exynos4210: IRQ subsystem support. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Evgeny Voevodin Cc: kyungmin.park@samsung.com, m.kozlov@samsung.com, jehyung.lee@samsung.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, d.solodkiy@samsung.com On 19 January 2012 08:31, Evgeny Voevodin wrote: > +#define GIC_NIRQ =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0160 > +#include "arm_gic.c" NB that when my current outstanding arm-devs pullreq lands you'll need to update this to handle the changes in http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/136609/ This shouldn't be too hard -- you can use the changes that patch makes to eg realview_gic.c as a guide. Basically the number of IRQs is now a parameter to gic_init() rather than a #define. (If it's possible for different Exynos4210 configurations to have different numbers of IRQs then you can make num-irq a qdev property as is done with a9mpcore.c, but I'm guessing that 160 is a fixed value for the SoC and need not be configurable.) Patch looks OK otherwise I think. -- PMM