Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:03:29 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/8] mfd: Provide the PRCMU with its own IRQ domain |
| |
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > What makes you say this? This is just a convenience for finding a > > domain, irqdomains are *completely* indepentant of device tree.
> How can you say that? I think you mean _can_ be independent of DT. If > that's what you mean then yes, that's true. All I'm saying is we need
No, I really mean what I'm saying. Device tree builds on irqdomains, not the other way around.
> another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain > it without having direct access is via a device node.
This doesn't actually hold.
> > > - I know that you have interest in pushing the functionality into the > > > IRQ domain subsystem, but I'm struggling to see how. It's calling into > > > the IRQ domain where we're seeing issues in the first place, specifically > > > irq_create_mapping(). How about if we passed 'irq_domain' as a parameter > > > when requesting the IRQ? That way we can pass the correct IRQ without > > > worry of conversion. If 'irq_domain' is !NULL the IRQ management subsystem > > > can do the necessary conversions. If 'irq_domain' is NULL it continues to > > > use the requested IRQ as a virq.
> > This is totally orthogonal to doing the mapping in the MFD subsystem > > which is the issue here.
> Again, I only mentioned this because you said you wanted it to be handled > by the irqdomain.
The *mapping* should be being handled in irqdomain.
> I'll code up the second suggestion now.
I've already done this. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |