On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 15 August 2013 04:01 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Sricharan R <r.sricharan@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Initially irqchip was discussed, but we also have a DMA crossbar >>> to map the dma-requests. Since both irq/dma crossbars should be handled, >>> pinctrl was suggested as the appropriate place to handle this. >> >> I think it is better to use irqchip. >> > Did you happen to read the thread why irqchip is in-appropriate > for such an IP. Sorry I don't understand what thread that is... can you point me there? My previous statement on this issue what this: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137442541628641&w=2 > As I said earlier, an IRQ-chip always need a > real IRQ link (even for the chained one) to the primary irqchip. > > This IP is just dummy IP makes the connections for the primary > irqchip(read GIC). And its use only limited to make the > connection between the peripheral IRQ event to the GIC IRQ line. > > I don't see how you can make this happen with an irqchip > infrastructure. I think my post above describes this. >> I don't see any way to really abstract this pretty simple crossbar >> for reuse across subsystems. >> > This exactly the reason, i am against idea of over-engineering the > simple IP whose only job is to make the physical wire connection > in software where as this is generally done in RTL by default on > most of the SOCs. Well, it was made accessible by software, and if someone has a usecase that requires this do be done dynamically, i.e. not just being set up by firmware and never touched, and that use case is valid, then I guess we need to do something... I think it was mentioned in the thread that there is really such a usecase? Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
