From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758273Ab2IUWU6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:20:58 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:1524 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756105Ab2IUWU4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:20:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,464,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="210072815" Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:20:53 +0200 From: Samuel Ortiz To: Lee Jones Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, STEricsson_nomadik_linux@list.st.com, linus.walleij@stericsson.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/19] mfd: Don't convert just one IRQ using irqdomain if a range is provided Message-ID: <20120921222053.GC28670@sortiz-mobl> References: <1347016499-29354-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <201209071337.26587.arnd@arndb.de> <20120907134259.GJ29601@gmail.com> <201209071357.27779.arnd@arndb.de> <20120917134550.GU3647@sortiz-mobl> <20120917141105.GE6777@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120917141105.GE6777@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Lee, On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:45:50PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > Hi Lee, Arnd, > > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:57:27PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 07 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:37:26PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > On Friday 07 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 12:35:41PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The examples I had seen before were all just ranges of two interrupts, > > > > > and in those cases it was clear that splitting them would be best. > > > > > > > > > > In the exampled of the ab8500-gpio driver, it looks like the resource is > > > > > not actually being used, and the gpio driver implements its own irq_chip, > > > > > so maybe we can get away with not solving this problem for now. > > > > > > > > Understood. I'd still feel more comfortable if we didn't trash the > > > > range. I think it would be best to show the warning, and leave the > > > > range for its target driver to take care - hence the patch. > > > > > > > > ... but it's your call. > > > > > > I'm fine with whatever Samuel sees fit here. My personal opinion is > > > that leaving the range alone for the child driver to do the conversion > > > would be too inconsistent and only lead to confusion with driver authors. > > Although I agree modifying the range is not very nice from the MFD core, I > > also think that the actual mapping should always be handled by MFD and not > > depend on wether the range is a singleton or not. Moreover the semantics of > > leaving the range untouched meaning that we haven't done the mappings is > > obscure. > > So I'm not taking this patch, sorry Lee. > > No problem. > > Would it be better if we _did_ support ranges, and map all of the > IRQs in the range instead? I think that would be a reasonable solution, unless Arnd or Mark see a serious problem with that. Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/