On Monday 13 October 2014 13:10:32 Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 13/10/14 11:43, Joe.C wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 17:59 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 09/10/14 15:29, Joe.C wrote > >>> @@ -952,7 +988,11 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, > >>> > >>> gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */ > >>> > >>> - if (of_property_read_u32(node, "arm,routable-irqs", > >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY) && > >>> + of_find_property(node, "arm,irq-domain-hierarchy", NULL)) > >>> + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, gic_irqs, > >>> + &gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops, gic); > >> > >> I really think that looking for a property is the wrong thing to do. If > >> "node" is non-NULL, then we're pretty sure that we're initializing from > >> DT, and that a pure linear domain should be the right thing, leaving the > >> legacy stuff for the few non-DT platforms that are still around. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> M. > > > > The only reason I introduce "arm,irq-domain-hierarchy" property is > > trying to keep original behavior when hierarchy irq domain is not used. > > Without this, when a board init GIC with DT, all driver will have to use > > devicetree. I'm not sure we want to break things like this. > > I don't think we want to support a "middle of the road" setup, where the > GIC is probed by DT, but some devices have hardcoded interrupts. Agreed. We should work on making GIC DT-only by converting the few remaining users instead, and certainly should not add any new board files that might use the domain hierarchy code. Arnd -- 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
