On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 11:18 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:55 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > * The declaration of a superfluous struct > > > > * 100 lines of additional/avoidable code > > > > * Hacky hoop jumping trying to fudge VIRQs into resources > > > > * Resources were designed for HWIRQs (unless a domain is present) > > > > * Loads of additional/avoidable CPU cycles setting all this up > > > > > > While the above may be right, this one is negligible and you know it. :) > > > > You have nested for() loops. You *are* wasting lots of cycles. > > > > > > Need I go on? :) > > > > > > > > Surely the fact that you are using both sides of an API > > > > (devm_regmap_init_i2c and regmap_irq_get_*) in the same driver, must > > > > set some alarm bells ringing? > > > > > > > > This whole HWIRQ setting, VIRQ getting, resource hacking is a mess. > > > > > > > > And for what? To avoid passing IRQ data to a child driver? > > > > > > What do you propose? Should I go back to the approach in v1 and pass > > > the regmap_irq_chip_data to child drivers? > > > > I'm saying you should remove all of this hackery and pass IRQs as they > > are supposed to be passed (like everyone else does). > > I'm not sure what you mean by "like everyone else does" - different > mfd drivers seem to be doing different things. Is a simple struct > containing virtual irq numbers passed to sub-drivers fine? How do you plan on deriving the VIRQs to place into the struct? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
