On Friday 29 November 2013 04:21 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>> The Davinci GPIO IRQs initialization may need to be performed in a
>> different way depending on SoC which use it. For example:
>> - Davinci dm365 has AINTC irq controller, implemented using Generic IRQ
>> chip, SPARSE_IRQ off;
>> - Davinci da850 has cp-intc controller, implemented using IRQ chip;
>> SPARSE_IRQ off;
>> - Kestone has arm-gic controller, implemented using IRQ chip;
>> SPARSE_IRQ on;
>
> Now this is a pretty big patch ...
>
> The big question that enters my mind is *why* is the da850 and
> dm365 not using SPARSE_IRQ?
>
> As it happens I'm on an ARM32 crusade to get everyone and its
> dog to use, among other things, SPARSE_IRQ.
>
> I would feel *much* *much* better if there was first a patch
> to the DaVinci tree to turn on SPARSE_IRQ for this subarch,
> and then this patch may look a bit different, maybe smaller
> I take it?
>
> Is this totally unattainable?
>
Probably Sekhar can comment but as such the GPIO driver should
work with and without SPARSE_IRQ and thats doable.
> Hence, introduce SoC specific initialization data
> struct davinci_gpio_init_data {
> int (*unbanked_irq_init)(struct platform_device *pdev);
> int (*banked_irq_init)(struct platform_device *pdev);
> };
> which can be selected using "compatibility" property in case of DT-boot
> and update code accordingly by splitting IRQ initialization code to
> banked and unbanked IRQs initialization functions.
>
> Select Davinci specific initialization data by default for non-DT boot
> case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com>
> ---
NAK. Lets drop this approach. Its easier to manage the
banked vs unbaked based on compatible as discussed over irc
Regards,
Santosh
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
