On 11/29/2011 04:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > Rob Herring wrote at Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:25 PM: >> On 11/29/2011 03:08 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: snip >> My brain is rotting... I think it was gic_of_init that I was thinking of >> but still can't find the email. >> >> Will your code even link currently with !CONFIG_OF. I would think it >> cannot resolve gic_of_init in that case. >> >> I have a lot of concerns that supporting both CONFIG_OF and !CONFIG_OF >> is going to be a pain as it's yet another variable to compile against. >> In order to actually start reducing reducing the size of the ARM >> platform code (that is the goal, right?), platforms need to be always OF >> enabled and start removing the !CONFIG_OF code. So why not always turn >> on CONFIG_OF for Tegra and not worry about this? Eventually, CONFIG_OF >> will always be enabled anyway. > > I've been looking at hooking up the Tegra GPIO controller's IRQ support > through device tree. It looks like I need to call irq_domain_add_simple() > for the GPIO node to make this work, and I think this needs to be triggered > by of_irq_init()'s match table, and hence I need a single of_irq_init() > call in Tegra's board-dt.c, which includes both the GIC and GPIO controller > entries. > > Is my understanding here all correct? If so, I will just follow your > initial suggestion and have tegra_init_irq() do just: Yes, you should have 1 of_irq_init call. Really the irqdomain code should go into the gpio code. Do you use generic irqchip for gpio? If so, I'm working on a patch adding irqdomain to generic irqchip. I still need to debug a problem with it and have been too busy to get back to it. Rob > if (!of_have_populated_dt()) > gic_init_bases(...); > > ... and move the of_irq_init call into board-dt.c. > > Thanks. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
