Hi Thomas, Sorry for top posting. My mailer is not allowing me any formatting. I agree with both of your comments below. I will post V3 for this. Regards, Sricharan ________________________________________ From: Thomas Gleixner [tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:45 PM To: R, Sricharan Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx; Nayak, Rajendra; marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; robherring2@xxxxxxxxx; Shilimkar, Santosh; Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] DRIVERS: IRQCHIP: IRQ-GIC: Add support for routable irqs On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Sricharan R wrote: > @@ -700,11 +709,22 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d, > *out_hwirq = intspec[1] + 16; > > /* For SPIs, we need to add 16 more to get the GIC irq ID number */ > - if (!intspec[0]) > + if (!intspec[0]) { > *out_hwirq += 16; Minor nit. This should be in the default implementation. The crossbar implementation will fill out_hwirq in its own way and is not interested in the +16 operation at all. > + ret = gic_routable_irq_domain_ops->xlate(d, controller, > + intspec, > + intsize, > + out_hwirq, > + out_type); > + > + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_legacy(node, gic_irqs, irq_base, > + hwirq_base, &gic_irq_domain_ops, gic); > + } else { > + if (WARN_ON(!gic_routable_irq_domain_ops)) > + return; This warning is pointless, because you have default ops now. > + > + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, nr_routable_irqs, > + &gic_irq_domain_ops, > + gic); > } Thanks, tglx-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html