Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:22:33 +0000 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] mfd: pm8921: Migrate to irqdomains |
| |
> >> unsigned int num_irqs; > >> unsigned int num_blocks; > >> unsigned int num_masters; > >> @@ -138,7 +137,7 @@ static int pm8xxx_irq_block_handler(struct pm_irq_chip *chip, int block) > >> for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) { > >> if (bits & (1 << i)) { > >> pmirq = block * 8 + i; > >> - irq = pmirq + chip->irq_base; > >> + irq = irq_find_mapping(chip->domain, pmirq); > > Going by this patch only, it appears you're calling irq_find_mapping() > > before you've called irq_create_mapping(). This won't work, so unless > > you've called the latter in a previous patch, you should ensure that > > you do so. > > > > Interrupts seem to work. I think that's because the mapping is created > when the consumer drivers call request_irq(). > > From what I can tell, if we call irq_find_mapping() and there is no > mapping associated with it then we have a spurious irq. If that happens > we'll call handle_generic_irq() with 0 and that will cause > handle_bad_irq() to be called and a debug message to be logged. That > seems like a good outcome.
I would try to adhere to the documentation in case we are missing something or some of the semantics change. Please read: Documentation/IRQ-domain.txt. Specifically, "=== irq_domain usage ===" from line 39, which says to call irq_create_mapping() to indeed, create the mapping.
> > What does the sizeof(u8) add here? > > > > This was just keeping the same code that was already there. I will do > sizeof(chip->config[0]) instead which is more future proof if that array > changes type later on.
Ah, now I see what it's doing. Perhaps brackets would be of use to ensure readers aren't confused. I also think the sizeof() would be helpful too, so:
chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip) + (sizeof(chip->config[0]) * nirqs), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + return of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev); > >> +} > > Can't you use the MFD core instead? > > > > Are you suggesting using mfd_add_devices()? At first glance it looks > like that would require an array of mfd_cell structures that do nothing > besides match compatible strings in the DT. Using of_platform_populate() > achieves the same goal and doesn't require an array of mfd_cell > structures for each different pm8xxx chip that comes along, meaning > simpler code.
I'm inclined to agree, but playing Devil's advocate here, as a device using the MFD subsystem it's often clearer to readers and other people looking for examples if the MFD core functionality is used. For instance, I now have no idea what devices the PM8xxx encompasses without looking at the DTS file. A small cell structure is a small price to pay for code clarity IMHO.
-- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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/
| |