On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:56:33 +0000, Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Marc > > Thanks for your suggestions, I'm working on v4 and I would like to > ask if it is better to have a driver for only one irqchip and create > dt nodes for each chip, or just register all the chips in a single > driver with only one dt node. It would make more sense to have a node per chip, meaning that you end-up with one instance per chip as well. It won't make the driver much more complicated. [...] > >> + domain = irq_domain_add_legacy(node, num_chips * 32, LS1X_IRQ_BASE, 0, > >> + &irq_domain_simple_ops, NULL); > > Why a legacy domain? This is usually reserved to old drivers that are > > converted to a new infrastructure, while needing some form of platform > > hacks. I don't see this being the case here. > > > > It is also worrying that although you have up to 5 irqchips, they all > > share a single domain. What does this mean? each irqchip is expected > > to have its own domain. > > Yes, I do like this for backward compatible reason. I'm turning > a legacy platform device mach(arch/mips/loongson32) in to > dt based generic mach and I would like to do it step by step rather > than one time. > > So I use legacy domain in order to keep IRQ same with the > old driver exist on arch/mips/loongson32/common/irq.c OK, it would have been good to make a note of that in the cover letter, which is a bit empty at the moment. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.
