Hey Sebastian, On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 05:18:42PM +0200, Sebastian Frias wrote: > On 07/05/2016 04:41 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Sebastian Frias wrote: > >> On 07/04/2016 02:11 PM, Mason wrote: > > ... > >>>> .../sigma,smp87xx-irqrouter.txt | 69 +++ > >>> > >>> In the *actual* submission, we can't use a wildcard like smp87xx > >>> we'll have to use an actual part number. > >> > >> Are you sure? > >> That would hinder genericity. > >> Actually I wanted to call it "sigma,smp-irqrouter.txt" (or > >> "sigma,smp,irqrouter.txt"). > > > > sigma,smp-irqrouter.txt should be fine. The devicetree maintainers > > should yelp if they want something different. > > > >> To me there's no need to link the compatible string of a given HW > >> module with that of the chip name the module it is embedded into. For > >> example, the generic USB3 driver is "generic-xhci". While this module > >> is not generic to be embedded in chips from different manufacturers, > >> it is supposed to be generic within Sigma, and multiple Sigma chips > >> (with potentially different denominations) can use it. > >> > >>> > >>>> drivers/irqchip/Makefile | 1 + > >>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-tango_v2.c | 594 > >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> > >>> Likewise, I don't like the "_v2" suffix, it's too generic. > >>> Actual submission should use something more specific. > >> > >> Well, the other driver is irq-tango.c that is generic as well. > >> I prefer versioning, as it is unrelated with the actual chip name. > > > > Is there a name, similar to 'tango', for this version of the IP? > > Something that would spark recognition for someone looking for "the damn > > driver for this XYZ irqchip I have". If not, irq-tango_v2.c is fine. > > > > Thanks for your comments. > So, aside from some naming issues, do you think the driver is ok?
Well, it's going to be few days before I can really dig in to this. Until then, what I can say I see is that it looks like you're using devicetree to tell Linux how to lay out the irq domains. That's not right :( The devicetree should *only* describe the hardware. Would *BSD be able to use the description in the dtb effectively? iiuc, I think irq-crossbar.c may be a similar enough in task to give you an idea or two. Beyond that, as you mention, there are a bunch of style issues, unneeded macros, etc. thx, Jason.
