Sebastian,
please do not take the rant below personally. You just happen to
trigger it.
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> +static void orion_irq_mask(struct irq_data *irqd)
> +{
> + unsigned int irq = irqd_to_hwirq(irqd);
> + unsigned int irq_off = irq % 32;
> + int reg = irq / 32;
> + u32 val;
> +
> + val = readl(orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
> + writel(val & ~(1 << irq_off), orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
> +}
> +
> +static void orion_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *irqd)
> +{
> + unsigned int irq = irqd_to_hwirq(irqd);
> + unsigned int irq_off = irq % 32;
> + int reg = irq / 32;
> + u32 val;
> +
> + val = readl(orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
> + writel(val | (1 << irq_off), orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
> +}
I'm really tired of looking at the next incarnation of an OF/DT irq
chip driver, which reimplements stuff which I have consolidated in the
generic irq chip implementation with a lot of effort.
Just look at the various implementations in drivers/irqchip/ and find
out how similar they are. Moving code to drivers/irqchip/ does not
make an excuse for reestablishing the mess which was addressed by the
generic irq chip implementation.
Can you - and that means all of you ARM folks - please get your gear
together and add the missing features to the generic irq chip
implementation? I'm not going to accept more of that OF/DT frenzy.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
