Hi Mark,
On 28/04/16 10:55, Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
> The "nvidia,tegra210-agic" string can be taken as describing any
> Tegra-210 specific integration quirks, though I agree that's also not
> fantastic for extending PM support beyond Tegra 210 and variants
> thereof.
>
> So maybe the best approach is bailing out in the presence of clocks
> and/or power domains after all, on the assumption that nothing today has
> those properties, though I fear we may have problems with that later
> down the line if/when people describe those for the root GIC to describe
> those must be hogged, even if not explicitly managed.
On further testing, by bailing out in the presence of clocks and/or
power-domains, the problem I now see is that although the primary gic-400
has been registered, we still try to probe it again later as it matches
the platform driver. One way to avoid this would be ...
diff --git a/drivers/of/irq.c b/drivers/of/irq.c
index e7bfc175b8e1..631da7ad0dbf 100644
--- a/drivers/of/irq.c
+++ b/drivers/of/irq.c
@@ -556,6 +556,8 @@ void __init of_irq_init(const struct of_device_id *matches)
* its children can get processed in a subsequent pass.
*/
list_add_tail(&desc->list, &intc_parent_list);
+
+ of_node_set_flag(desc->dev, OF_POPULATED);
}
If this is not appropriate then I guess I will just need to use
"tegra210-agic" for the compatibility flag.
Cheers
Jon
--
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
