[PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

If we're booting with Device Tree enabled, we want the IRQ numbers to
be taken and translated from the Device Tree binary. If not, they
should be taken from the resource allocation defined in the AB8500 MFD
core driver.

Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c |    6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c
index 1a1d974..afcd87f 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c
@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static irqreturn_t ab8500_ponkey_handler(int irq, void *data)
 static int __devinit ab8500_ponkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	struct ab8500 *ab8500 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
+	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
 	struct ab8500_ponkey *ponkey;
 	struct input_dev *input;
 	int irq_dbf, irq_dbr;
@@ -73,8 +74,9 @@ static int __devinit ab8500_ponkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	ponkey->idev = input;
 	ponkey->ab8500 = ab8500;
-	ponkey->irq_dbf = ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf);
-	ponkey->irq_dbr = ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr);
+
+	ponkey->irq_dbf = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf) : irq_dbf;
+	ponkey->irq_dbr = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr) : irq_dbr;
 
 	input->name = "AB8500 POn(PowerOn) Key";
 	input->dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Dmitry Torokhov]

Hi Lee,

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:32:03PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> If we're booting with Device Tree enabled, we want the IRQ numbers to
> be taken and translated from the Device Tree binary. If not, they
> should be taken from the resource allocation defined in the AB8500 MFD
> core driver.
> 
> Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c |    6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c
> index 1a1d974..afcd87f 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/ab8500-ponkey.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static irqreturn_t ab8500_ponkey_handler(int irq, void *data)
>  static int __devinit ab8500_ponkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>  	struct ab8500 *ab8500 = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> +	struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
>  	struct ab8500_ponkey *ponkey;
>  	struct input_dev *input;
>  	int irq_dbf, irq_dbr;
> @@ -73,8 +74,9 @@ static int __devinit ab8500_ponkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	ponkey->idev = input;
>  	ponkey->ab8500 = ab8500;
> -	ponkey->irq_dbf = ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf);
> -	ponkey->irq_dbr = ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr);
> +
> +	ponkey->irq_dbf = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf) : irq_dbf;
> +	ponkey->irq_dbr = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr) : irq_dbr;

Why this isn't done inside ab8500_irq_get_virq()?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:19:15AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > -	ponkey->irq_dbf = ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf);
> > -	ponkey->irq_dbr = ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr);
> > +
> > +	ponkey->irq_dbf = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf) : irq_dbf;
> > +	ponkey->irq_dbr = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr) : irq_dbr;
> 
> Why this isn't done inside ab8500_irq_get_virq()?

There's no reason why it can't be.

My first version of the patch did just that in fact.

Would that be your preference?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:19:15AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> > > +	ponkey->irq_dbf = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf) : irq_dbf;
> > > +	ponkey->irq_dbr = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr) : irq_dbr;

> > Why this isn't done inside ab8500_irq_get_virq()?

> There's no reason why it can't be.

> My first version of the patch did just that in fact.

> Would that be your preference?

Restating my comment elsewhere...  why do we even need to do this in
_get_virq() - I'd *really* expect this to be handled by the irq domain
code.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 05:02:26PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:19:15AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> 
> > > > +	ponkey->irq_dbf = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf) : irq_dbf;
> > > > +	ponkey->irq_dbr = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr) : irq_dbr;
> 
> > > Why this isn't done inside ab8500_irq_get_virq()?
> 
> > There's no reason why it can't be.
> 
> > My first version of the patch did just that in fact.
> 
> > Would that be your preference?
> 
> Restating my comment elsewhere...  why do we even need to do this in
> _get_virq() - I'd *really* expect this to be handled by the irq domain
> code.

I really should stop reading my emails backwards. :)

I'll look into this tomorrow.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 05:02:26PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 04:37:52PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:19:15AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> 
> > > > +	ponkey->irq_dbf = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbf) : irq_dbf;
> > > > +	ponkey->irq_dbr = (np) ? ab8500_irq_get_virq(ab8500, irq_dbr) : irq_dbr;
> 
> > > Why this isn't done inside ab8500_irq_get_virq()?
> 
> > There's no reason why it can't be.
> 
> > My first version of the patch did just that in fact.
> 
> > Would that be your preference?
> 
> Restating my comment elsewhere...  why do we even need to do this in
> _get_virq() - I'd *really* expect this to be handled by the irq domain
> code.

Okay, so I've just spent a small amount of time looking at this. I think
the best place for this would be in *_get_virq(), using the same logic that
selected a *_legacy or *_linear domain in the first place. The only thing 
the domain can test for is the 'type' of domain and the requested IRQ. This
is where the issue lies. If a hwirq to virq conversion is requested, but a
virq is passed (which happens in the non-DT case) a WARN() is triggered
because the irq passed is bigger than first_irq + size. I think *_get_virq()
should ensure that only a hwirq is passed to irq_create_mapping().

Let me know if you had other ideas.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 06:01:30PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

> Okay, so I've just spent a small amount of time looking at this. I think
> the best place for this would be in *_get_virq(), using the same logic that
> selected a *_legacy or *_linear domain in the first place. The only thing 
> the domain can test for is the 'type' of domain and the requested IRQ. This
> is where the issue lies. If a hwirq to virq conversion is requested, but a
> virq is passed (which happens in the non-DT case) a WARN() is triggered
> because the irq passed is bigger than first_irq + size. I think *_get_virq()
> should ensure that only a hwirq is passed to irq_create_mapping().

> Let me know if you had other ideas.

I'd expect your driver to always pass a hwirq into _get_virq() here.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

> Restating my comment elsewhere...  why do we even need to do this in
> _get_virq() - I'd *really* expect this to be handled by the irq domain
> code.

> > Okay, so I've just spent a small amount of time looking at this. I think
> > the best place for this would be in *_get_virq(), using the same logic that
> > selected a *_legacy or *_linear domain in the first place. 

> I'd expect your driver to always pass a hwirq into _get_virq() here.

I actually had this thought last night.

(I really must learn to switch off in the evenings.) ;)

That's even easier then. I'll make the changes and submit.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 06:01:30PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > Okay, so I've just spent a small amount of time looking at this. I think
> > the best place for this would be in *_get_virq(), using the same logic that
> > selected a *_legacy or *_linear domain in the first place. The only thing 
> > the domain can test for is the 'type' of domain and the requested IRQ. This
> > is where the issue lies. If a hwirq to virq conversion is requested, but a
> > virq is passed (which happens in the non-DT case) a WARN() is triggered
> > because the irq passed is bigger than first_irq + size. I think *_get_virq()
> > should ensure that only a hwirq is passed to irq_create_mapping().
> 
> > Let me know if you had other ideas.
> 
> I'd expect your driver to always pass a hwirq into _get_virq() here.

Okay, actually this isn't so easy. Currently we have:

During DT boot:
 - No platform data is passed, hence no IRQ base for AB8500 is either
 - No IRQ base means we register a Linear IRQ Domain
 - MFD sees there is no base and leaves the IRQ resource as a hwirq
 - AB8500 child devices use *_get_virq() to convert the hwirq to a virq

During non-DT boot:
 - Platform data is passed, which contains an IRQ base
 - If an IRQ base is requested we use it to register a Legacy IRQ Domain
 - MFD adds the IRQ base to the hwirq and registers it as a virq
 - AB8500 child devices use *_get_virq() to convert virq to virq - *ERROR*

I guess my suggestion falls-back to placing logic in *_get_virq() to only
call irq_create_mapping() when when !ab8500->irq_base.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 08 August 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
> Okay, actually this isn't so easy. Currently we have:
> 
> During DT boot:
>  - No platform data is passed, hence no IRQ base for AB8500 is either
>  - No IRQ base means we register a Linear IRQ Domain
>  - MFD sees there is no base and leaves the IRQ resource as a hwirq
>  - AB8500 child devices use *_get_virq() to convert the hwirq to a virq
> 
> During non-DT boot:
>  - Platform data is passed, which contains an IRQ base
>  - If an IRQ base is requested we use it to register a Legacy IRQ Domain
>  - MFD adds the IRQ base to the hwirq and registers it as a virq
>  - AB8500 child devices use *_get_virq() to convert virq to virq - ERROR
> 
> I guess my suggestion falls-back to placing logic in *_get_virq() to only
> call irq_create_mapping() when when !ab8500->irq_base.

In general, it seems easier to use the same domain type for both cases.
I don't think that MOP500_AB8500_VIR_GPIO_IRQ_BASE is used anywhere
else besides the .irq_base definition in board-mop500.c, so I would guess
that you can just remove that identifier and always use the linear
domain.

	Arnd

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:28:35AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> In general, it seems easier to use the same domain type for both cases.
> I don't think that MOP500_AB8500_VIR_GPIO_IRQ_BASE is used anywhere
> else besides the .irq_base definition in board-mop500.c, so I would guess
> that you can just remove that identifier and always use the linear
> domain.

Given how easy this is to get working it doesn't seem sensible to avoid
it - there's a clear pattern already for maintaining support for legacy
domains.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:04:12AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

> During non-DT boot:
>  - Platform data is passed, which contains an IRQ base
>  - If an IRQ base is requested we use it to register a Legacy IRQ Domain
>  - MFD adds the IRQ base to the hwirq and registers it as a virq

Just don't do this step - the only reason to do it is for mapping back
into a linear domain but if you're going to do this...

>  - AB8500 child devices use *_get_virq() to convert virq to virq - *ERROR*

...then it's redundant.  The mapping functions in the domain code
replace this functionality.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:49:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:04:12AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > During non-DT boot:
> >  - Platform data is passed, which contains an IRQ base
> >  - If an IRQ base is requested we use it to register a Legacy IRQ Domain
> >  - MFD adds the IRQ base to the hwirq and registers it as a virq
> 
> Just don't do this step - the only reason to do it is for mapping back
> into a linear domain but if you're going to do this...
> 
> >  - AB8500 child devices use *_get_virq() to convert virq to virq - *ERROR*
> 
> ...then it's redundant.  The mapping functions in the domain code
> replace this functionality.

No, the other way round. This is now required all the time.

Now we force the use of hwirq, the driver needs to convert that into a
virq before requesting the resource. So we need to put *_get_virq()'s into
every child device that requests an IRQ.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:40:38PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:49:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > >  - MFD adds the IRQ base to the hwirq and registers it as a virq

> > Just don't do this step - the only reason to do it is for mapping back
> > into a linear domain but if you're going to do this...

> > >  - AB8500 child devices use *_get_virq() to convert virq to virq - *ERROR*

> > ...then it's redundant.  The mapping functions in the domain code
> > replace this functionality.

> No, the other way round. This is now required all the time.

> Now we force the use of hwirq, the driver needs to convert that into a
> virq before requesting the resource. So we need to put *_get_virq()'s into
> every child device that requests an IRQ.

Yes, that's exactly what I said - and as a result of doing this the
remapping in the MFD core becomes redundant.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Linus Walleij]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:

> If we're booting with Device Tree enabled, we want the IRQ numbers to
> be taken and translated from the Device Tree binary. If not, they
> should be taken from the resource allocation defined in the AB8500 MFD
> core driver.
>
> Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

Not having this patch in v3.6-rcN gives the following boot noise (and
the key does not work):

------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: at /home/elinwal/linux-stericsson/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:137
irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48()
Modules linked in:
[<c0014710>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf8) from [<c001d37c>]
(warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64)
[<c001d37c>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64) from [<c001d3b0>]
(warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24)
[<c001d3b0>] (warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24) from [<c0064200>]
(irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48)
[<c0064200>] (irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48) from [<c02cea28>]
(ab8500_ponkey_probe+0xd0/0x1f8)
[<c02cea28>] (ab8500_ponkey_probe+0xd0/0x1f8) from [<c01a1e20>]
(platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18)
[<c01a1e20>] (platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18) from [<c01a0be4>]
(driver_probe_device+0x78/0x208)
[<c01a0be4>] (driver_probe_device+0x78/0x208) from [<c01a0e00>]
(__driver_attach+0x8c/0x90)
[<c01a0e00>] (__driver_attach+0x8c/0x90) from [<c019f514>]
(bus_for_each_dev+0x50/0x7c)
[<c019f514>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x50/0x7c) from [<c01a0424>]
(bus_add_driver+0x170/0x23c)
[<c01a0424>] (bus_add_driver+0x170/0x23c) from [<c01a12b4>]
(driver_register+0x78/0x144)
[<c01a12b4>] (driver_register+0x78/0x144) from [<c0008598>]
(do_one_initcall+0x34/0x174)
[<c0008598>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x174) from [<c03df8e8>]
(kernel_init+0xfc/0x1bc)
[<c03df8e8>] (kernel_init+0xfc/0x1bc) from [<c000f1d4>]
(kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
---[ end trace d77aa0db848f0e28 ]---
ab8500-core ab8500-core.0: Failed to request dbf IRQ#0: -22
ab8500-poweron-key: probe of ab8500-poweron-key.0 failed with error -22

So how do we proceed to not release v3.6 with this regression?

Shall all of the MFD IRQdomain stuff be pulled into the -rc series?

(Linux-next seems to be working, so the real fix is in there)

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Lee Jones]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > If we're booting with Device Tree enabled, we want the IRQ numbers to
> > be taken and translated from the Device Tree binary. If not, they
> > should be taken from the resource allocation defined in the AB8500 MFD
> > core driver.
> >
> > Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> 
> Not having this patch in v3.6-rcN gives the following boot noise (and
> the key does not work):
> 
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: at /home/elinwal/linux-stericsson/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:137
> irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48()
> Modules linked in:
> [<c0014710>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf8) from [<c001d37c>]
> (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64)
> [<c001d37c>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64) from [<c001d3b0>]
> (warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24)
> [<c001d3b0>] (warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24) from [<c0064200>]
> (irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48)
> [<c0064200>] (irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48) from [<c02cea28>]
> (ab8500_ponkey_probe+0xd0/0x1f8)
> [<c02cea28>] (ab8500_ponkey_probe+0xd0/0x1f8) from [<c01a1e20>]
> (platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18)
> [<c01a1e20>] (platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18) from [<c01a0be4>]
> (driver_probe_device+0x78/0x208)
> [<c01a0be4>] (driver_probe_device+0x78/0x208) from [<c01a0e00>]
> (__driver_attach+0x8c/0x90)
> [<c01a0e00>] (__driver_attach+0x8c/0x90) from [<c019f514>]
> (bus_for_each_dev+0x50/0x7c)
> [<c019f514>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x50/0x7c) from [<c01a0424>]
> (bus_add_driver+0x170/0x23c)
> [<c01a0424>] (bus_add_driver+0x170/0x23c) from [<c01a12b4>]
> (driver_register+0x78/0x144)
> [<c01a12b4>] (driver_register+0x78/0x144) from [<c0008598>]
> (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x174)
> [<c0008598>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x174) from [<c03df8e8>]
> (kernel_init+0xfc/0x1bc)
> [<c03df8e8>] (kernel_init+0xfc/0x1bc) from [<c000f1d4>]
> (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
> ---[ end trace d77aa0db848f0e28 ]---
> ab8500-core ab8500-core.0: Failed to request dbf IRQ#0: -22
> ab8500-poweron-key: probe of ab8500-poweron-key.0 failed with error -22
> 
> So how do we proceed to not release v3.6 with this regression?
> 
> Shall all of the MFD IRQdomain stuff be pulled into the -rc series?
> 
> (Linux-next seems to be working, so the real fix is in there)

I haven't tested this, but I think this patch should be pulled out
of -next and pushed into the -rcs to fix the issue you see above.
The real fix along with the revert to this patch also resides in
-next and will be applied during the next merge window.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> Not having this patch in v3.6-rcN gives the following boot noise (and
>> the key does not work):
>>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: at /home/elinwal/linux-stericsson/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:137
>> irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48()
(...)
> I haven't tested this, but I think this patch should be pulled out
> of -next and pushed into the -rcs to fix the issue you see above.
> The real fix along with the revert to this patch also resides in
> -next and will be applied during the next merge window.

Dmitry, can you fix this?

v3.6-rc6 is regressing on us...

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Input: ab8500-ponkey: Make the distinction between DT and non-DT boots

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:22:06PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:35:43AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>
> >> Not having this patch in v3.6-rcN gives the following boot noise (and
> >> the key does not work):
> >>
> >> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> WARNING: at /home/elinwal/linux-stericsson/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:137
> >> irq_domain_legacy_revmap+0x20/0x48()
> (...)
> > I haven't tested this, but I think this patch should be pulled out
> > of -next and pushed into the -rcs to fix the issue you see above.
> > The real fix along with the revert to this patch also resides in
> > -next and will be applied during the next merge window.
> 
> Dmitry, can you fix this?
> 
> v3.6-rc6 is regressing on us...

OK, I'll revert and send a pull request tonight.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry