* Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> [110104 22:37]: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > I think there's been some patches related to this to get rid > > of NR_IRQS? Might be worth taking a look at those first as it's > > a generic solution. > > Yeah, one way would be to use Sparse IRQ numbering scheme and define > different bases for different IRQ chips. We could use for example, > something like: > > IRQ | Chip > ===================== > 0-299 | INTC > 300-499 | TWL4030 > 500-599 | MENELAUS > 600-799 | RETU > 800-999 | TAHVO > > and so on. But I'm not sure that's good enough (numbers are just from > the top of my head, didn't really check how many IRQs each one have). > > The only problem I see is with INTC, what happens if we give it an > interval which ends up not being big enough for next OMAP versions ? I think that's the way to go, but we should not allocate that many irqs.. We can define the ranges like we already do in irqs.h based on what gets compiled in. There are few more blocks though: INTC GPIO MPUIO GIC FPGA RETU TAHVO MENELAUS TWL4030 The numbers for INTC we know assuming new omaps will use GIC. The external chips rarely have more than few interrupts. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
