Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:58:07 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irqchip/renesas-irqc: Use platform_get_irq_optional() to get the interrupt |
| |
Hi Andy,
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:49 AM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 12:24 PM Geert Uytterhoeven > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:10 AM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 12:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven > > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 10:57 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:45 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > > > > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 9:49 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:59 AM Lad, Prabhakar > > > > > > > <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > When will this patch be merged for the new api, so that I can base my > > > > > > > > patches on top of it to avoid more changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can simply imply that, I dunno when it gets merged (from my point > > > > > > > of view the users should be fixed first, and since you are adding > > > > > > > users, the burden is increasing). > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only users (drivers), but also providers (architecture-specific code). > > > > > > IRQ zero is still valid on some architectures, e.g. on SH[1]. > > > > > > > > > > Are we talking about vIRQ? > > > > > And users are fine with a big warning? > > > > > > > > The warning is only seen when a driver uses platorm_get_irq{,_optional}(). > > > > There are several other ways to obtain interrupts, avoiding the > > > > big warning. > > > > > > Forgot to comment on this, then why is it a problem to allow > > > platfiorm_get_irq_optional() use 0 for no IRQ? > > > So, it seems you gave me a good justification for my way :-) > > > > In se that is not a problem, assumed by now everybody should have > > seen the warning, right? Unfortunately that assumption is probably > > not true, as people may not upgrade their kernel, cfr. my SH Ethernet > > example. > > > > Apart from that, any new conversion to platfiorm_get_irq_optional() > > might cause a regression on an obscure platform still using IRQ0. > > What architectures? > Are there any examples besides ethernet drivers on SH?
Sorry, I don't know.
> Let's start a list: > SH: only few cases related to smc911 Ethernet driver
Time to get rid of SH ;-)
> x86: Legacy APIC 1:1 mapping, where 0 is used by timer which doesn't > involve platform API
Time to get rid of x86 ;-)
> ...???... > > And what about "getting IRQ without big warning"? What did you have in > mind when you put it?
If the driver uses platform_get_resource(..., IORESOURCE_IRQ, ...) to get the IRQ number, the warning in platform_get_irq_optional() doesn't trigger, as the latter is not called?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |