On 05/03/2013 12:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 02 May 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
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.
So you are suggesting to have a "linux,generic-intc" or you want me
to have "marvell,orion-intc" make use of generic irq chip again?
The second is easy, the first will take me a while to think about
proper DT properties how to encode mask/unmask/ack/.. availability
and offsets.
I think it should not be "linux,..." since the description can
well be OS independent. I don't have a good idea for a generic
name, but it's not very important.
The main missing piece in the generic irqchip code at the moment
is support for the linear irqdomain. Once we have that, a lot of
code can be simplified significantly.
Arnd, Thomas,
I still don't get it completely. Are you requesting a full blown
DT-enabled generic irq chip driver that can be setup by DT properties?
Or is it just to have current generic irq chip play with linear
irqdomain?
If it is just linear irqdomain, then I can have a look at it
now. I would first send v2 to allow the others to integrate
Kirkwood, Orion5x, and Discovery Innovation. Then v3 will
touch generic irq and merge that with orion irqchip.
(@Jason C: Are you sure that I should merge dove and orion
irqchip patches? I doubt that anything touching generic irq
will not go through irq tree.)
Sebastian
--
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
