On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > What makes you say this? This is just a convenience for finding a > > domain, irqdomains are *completely* indepentant of device tree. > How can you say that? I think you mean _can_ be independent of DT. If > that's what you mean then yes, that's true. All I'm saying is we need No, I really mean what I'm saying. Device tree builds on irqdomains, not the other way around. > another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain > it without having direct access is via a device node. This doesn't actually hold. > > > - I know that you have interest in pushing the functionality into the > > > IRQ domain subsystem, but I'm struggling to see how. It's calling into > > > the IRQ domain where we're seeing issues in the first place, specifically > > > irq_create_mapping(). How about if we passed 'irq_domain' as a parameter > > > when requesting the IRQ? That way we can pass the correct IRQ without > > > worry of conversion. If 'irq_domain' is !NULL the IRQ management subsystem > > > can do the necessary conversions. If 'irq_domain' is NULL it continues to > > > use the requested IRQ as a virq. > > This is totally orthogonal to doing the mapping in the MFD subsystem > > which is the issue here. > Again, I only mentioned this because you said you wanted it to be handled > by the irqdomain. The *mapping* should be being handled in irqdomain. > I'll code up the second suggestion now. I've already done this.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
