Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: davinci: define gpio interrupts as separate resources | From | "J, KEERTHY" <> | Date | Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:08:41 +0530 |
| |
On 11/20/2018 2:22 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: > On 13/11/18 7:20 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >> >> Since commit eb3744a2dd01 ("gpio: davinci: Do not assume continuous >> IRQ numbering") the davinci GPIO driver fails to probe if we boot >> in legacy mode from any of the board files. Since the driver now >> expects every interrupt to be defined as a separate resource, split >> the definition in devices-da8xx.c instead of having a single continuous >> interrupt range. >> >> Fixes: eb3744a2dd01 ("gpio: davinci: Do not assume continuous IRQ numbering") >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > There are a number of other boards that need such fixing too. And the > commit in question does not do a good job of explaining why it was > needed in the first place. The description just repeats what can be > inferred by reading the patch.
Cc Lokesh
Sekhar,
DT explicitly mentions every IRQ number. The patch in discussion explicitly calls platform_get_irq for all the interrupts which to me is the right thing to do as: platform_get_irq--> of_irq_get-->irq_create_of_mapping--> sequence is to be done for every IRQ.
k3-am654 definitely will need explicit calls to platform_get_irq as it will be involving interrupt router and interrupt numbers need not be continuous.
So i do not think reverting the patch is the right idea.
Regards, Keerthy
> > > gpio: davinci: Do not assume continuous IRQ numbering > > Currently the driver assumes that the interrupts are continuous > and does platform_get_irq only once and assumes the rest are continuous, > instead call platform_get_irq for all the interrupts and store them > in an array for later use. > > Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> > Reviewed-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > > Can we revert the offending commit instead? > > Thanks, > Sekhar >
| |