On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:58:19PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 01:14:18PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > Then we could have chip->no_of set for the 'main irq chip' and for those
> > > chips we don't wan't to expose via DT. In my case I would leave no_of
> > > unset only for the irq-chip which I created for the GPIO? Is this a
> > > silly idea?

> > That's worth a shot, yes - I'd need to see it fully fleshed out I think
> > but it looks sensible (no ternery operator please).

> Do you think this would be benefical even if we add the 'main irq
> support'? If so, I can generate a patch out of this. I think this would
> really suffice for my current need - but this stops wokrking as soon as
> more than one sub-irq-chip want's to expose interrupts via DT.

Hrm, yeah.  That's a thing.  I think I'd misvisualized the DT change as
being the other way around for some reason.

> > Your idea definitely works for the current case, yes - I'm just thinking
> > about future edge and extension cases.

> I could send an example on how the driver utilizing the original RFC
> interface would look like. I am starting to think it was not *that* bad
> after all...

That might help, yes.

> > > I see your point now. But as I said, I am not sure we should add the
> > > overhead of 'main irq bit description' for simple cases just to cover
> > > the corner cases. Yet I can try seeing what I can come up with if you
> > > think this is the way to go.

> > If you could take a look that'd be great.

> I did some experiment. I will post this as another RFC - but I am really
> not terribly happy about it. It's complex (well, in my opinion) and I am
> not sure the driver interface is much easier. But you can see it
> yourself.

Great, I'll take a proper look on Monday.  Thanks for putting the time
in here!