Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip: Add support for ARMv7-M's NVIC | Date | Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:23:43 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday 17 April 2013, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> This patch triggers two checkpatch warnings: > > WARNING: Avoid CamelCase: <nvic_do_IRQ> > WARNING: Avoid CamelCase: <handle_IRQ> > > but I think they are OK for consistency?!
You obviously have no choice for handle_IRQ, but I think the common way to name the first-level interrupt handler would be "nvic_handle_irq" here.
> Moreover sparse tells me: > > drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c:58:1: warning: symbol 'nvic_do_IRQ' was not declared. Should it be static? > > nvic_do_IRQ is called from assembler only, so a declaration couldn't be > shared and I couldn't find a nice place for a declaration. Suggestions > welcome.
Can't you make it static and call set_handle_irq() on it from the probe function?
> + * Each bank handles 32 irqs. Only the 16th (= last) bank handles only > + * 16 irqs. > + */ > +#define NVIC_MAX_IRQ ((NVIC_MAX_BANKS - 1) * 32 + 16)
Is this actually inherent to the hardware design, or is the number of irqs actually customizable? Also, why do you care about the maximum? You only use it to check against the device tree provided value, but I suppose you could just as well trust that property to be correct.
Arnd -- 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/
| |