On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:56:50PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Simon Horman wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:17:20PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > > > > This patch is based on "ARM: arch-shmobile: Use multiple irq vectors for SDHI" > > > > > > > > It removes multiplexing of the SDHI vectors and names each IRQ source > > > > to allow the SDHI driver to used source-specific handlers. > > > > > > > > This is untested as I do not have access to a working g4evm. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Requires "mmc: sdhi: Allow specific IRQ sources to use corresponding handlers." > > > > > > > > *** compile tested only *** > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-g4evm.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/intc-sh7377.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > > > > This second file should not be here, right? > > > > I believe that the g4evm uses the sh7377 and that the multiplexing of > > SDHIinterrupts for the 7377 need to be removed in order to provide multiple > > SDHI irq sources. > > > > Am I missing something? > > Maybe not, I just misread your patch description as that it only should > touch the board itself. Since intc-sh7377.c has to be touched too, this > should be tested, I think. And I don't have any 7377 hardware available. I agree that this needs to be tested (or dropped). And its annoying that neither of us have the hardware at this time. > Also, would anything break, if we split this into three patches? The first > one would only modify g4evm.c with demuxed IRQs but without names. Then > the sdhi/tmio driver will install the generic ISR for each of them, and in > fact all interrupts would still only come on one IRQ. Then the second > patch would modify intc-sh7377.c, after which IRQs will be routed to > different vectors. And the third patch would then add names to IRQs. But > maybe Paul prefers a single patch for all that. Personally I think a single patch is the way to go. Though I have no strong feelings on the issue. With regards to your question about splitting the patch. Adding the names as a separate patch should be fine for the reason you describe. However, I suspect the other split you suggest would not work. In any case, two patches would reflect the way the changes have been made on the 7372 (mackerel and ap4evb). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
