在 2016/3/30 19:38, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
> 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?
>
Hi Alan/Andy,
It sounds good, I will follow this suggestion and do a test. But, what's the
"separate prepended patch" mean?
Thanks, Jiang
--
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
