On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:30 AM Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > tl;dr if patches are agreed upon, I ask subsys maintainers to take the > respective ones via their trees (as they are split per subsys), so that > the IRQ tree can take only the rest. That would minimize churn/conflicts > during merges. > > === > > While I was reading through the irqdomain code and headers, I found some > naming and documentation hard to follow or incomplete. Especially the > naming of _add/_create/_instantiate functions. > > I tried to come up with a better state with this patchset: > * only irq _domain_ (not host), > * only irq_domain_create*() functions, all taking fwnode uniformly, > > Finally, all the irqdomain stuff is now plugged (and generated) into > Documentation. So that everyone can walk through it at > https://www.kernel.org/doc/ (once applied, of course). I am all to support the idea, but in some cases I would think of a bit more work to be done to get rid of the of_fwnode_handle(np) in favour of dev_fwnode(dev). Note, this is based on a brief look, I haven't any example at hand right now. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
