On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:31 PM, qiujiang <qiujiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> - if (pp->idx == 0 &&
>> - of_property_read_bool(port_np, "interrupt-controller")) {
>> - pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(port_np, 0);
>> + if (dev->of_node && pp->idx == 0 &&
>> + fwnode_property_read_bool(fwnode,
>> + "interrupt-controller")) {
>> + pp->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(to_of_node(fwnode), 0);
>> if (!pp->irq) {
>> dev_warn(dev, "no irq for bank %s\n",
>> - port_np->full_name);
>> + to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> pp->irq_shared = false;
>> pp->gpio_base = -1;
>> - pp->name = port_np->full_name;
>> + if (dev->of_node)
>> + pp->name = to_of_node(fwnode)->full_name;
>
> Hi Jiang,
>
> I tested lightly on a CycloneV and it worked fine (with device tree).
>
> One suggestion for both patches: you could remove name from struct
> dwapb_port_property and get rid of pp->name and nobody would miss it.
> All it is used for is some dev_err's so the device info gets printed
> anyway. For example (if I leave the irq out of the DT)
>
> gpio-dwapb ff708000.gpio: no irq for bank /soc/gpio@ff708000/gpio-controller@0
>
> is redundant. The only additional info here from the name is the port
> index. That could be added to the messages without having to get the
> name through the two property/of methods.
>
Good suggestion! That'll make patches and code cleaner.
Perhaps separate prepended patch?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
