Hi Thomas,
Sorry for top posting. My mailer is not allowing me any formatting.
I agree with both of your comments below.
I will post V3 for this.
Regards,
Sricharan
________________________________________
From: Thomas Gleixner [tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:45 PM
To: R, Sricharan
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx; Nayak, Rajendra; marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; robherring2@xxxxxxxxx; Shilimkar, Santosh; Rob Herring
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] DRIVERS: IRQCHIP: IRQ-GIC: Add support for routable irqs
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013, Sricharan R wrote:
> @@ -700,11 +709,22 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
> *out_hwirq = intspec[1] + 16;
>
> /* For SPIs, we need to add 16 more to get the GIC irq ID number */
> - if (!intspec[0])
> + if (!intspec[0]) {
> *out_hwirq += 16;
Minor nit. This should be in the default implementation. The crossbar
implementation will fill out_hwirq in its own way and is not
interested in the +16 operation at all.
> + ret = gic_routable_irq_domain_ops->xlate(d, controller,
> + intspec,
> + intsize,
> + out_hwirq,
> + out_type);
> +
> + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_legacy(node, gic_irqs, irq_base,
> + hwirq_base, &gic_irq_domain_ops, gic);
> + } else {
> + if (WARN_ON(!gic_routable_irq_domain_ops))
> + return;
This warning is pointless, because you have default ops now.
> +
> + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, nr_routable_irqs,
> + &gic_irq_domain_ops,
> + gic);
> }
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
