B1;2601;0cOn Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Mark Salter wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/c6x/kernel/irq.c b/arch/c6x/kernel/irq.c
> +static raw_spinlock_t core_irq_lock;
static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(...) please, so you can get rid of the
raw_spin_lock_init(...) below.
> +static int core_host_map(struct irq_host *h, unsigned int virq,
> + irq_hw_number_t hw)
> +{
> + if (hw < 4 || hw >= NR_PRIORITY_IRQS)
> + return -1;
Proper error code please, i.e -EINVAL or such
> +
> + irq_set_status_flags(virq, IRQ_LEVEL);
> + irq_set_chip_and_handler(virq, &core_chip, handle_level_irq);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct irq_host_ops core_host_ops = {
> + .map = core_host_map,
> +};
> +
> +void __init init_IRQ(void)
> +{
> + struct device_node *np;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_init(&core_irq_lock);
See above.
Aside of that I'm still not too happy about the of_/irqhost/domain
code replication and the cleanup which needs to be done after that has
been solved. Though if you and Grant have a plan for that, I'm not in
the way.
Btw, keeping people who have been added to previous review comments of
a particular patch in the CC makes everyones life easier.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
