Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes:
> On Monday 15 December 2014 00:10:06 Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> +
>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cot);
>> + cot->gpio0 = gpiod_get(&pdev->dev, "lubbock_irq", 0);
>> + if (IS_ERR(cot->gpio0)) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't request GPIO : ret = %d\n",
>> ret);
>> + return PTR_ERR(cot->gpio0);
>> + }
>> + cot->irq = gpiod_to_irq(cot->gpio0);
>> + if (cot->irq < 0)
>> + return cot->irq;
>> +
>> + cot->irqdomain =
>> + irq_domain_add_linear(pdev->dev.of_node, COTTULA_NB_IRQ,
>> + &cottula_irq_domain_ops, cot);
>> + if (!cot->irqdomain)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + ret = 0;
>> + if (base_irq)
>> + ret = irq_create_strict_mappings(cot->irqdomain, base_irq, 0,
>> + COTTULA_NB_IRQ);
>>
>
> This looks a bit ambiguous: You get a GPIO line for the purpose of the
> IRQ nesting but don't use the GPIO otherwise, and you pass the device's
> own irq domain start as an IORESOURCE_IRQ resource.
>
> For consistency between DT and ATAGS based uses, and with similar DT
> based drivers, I would instead recommend passing the parent irq (from
> the GPIO) as an IORESOURCE_IRQ resource instead of a gpio lookup,
> and passing the base_irq as platform_data for the ATAGS case.
I understand Arnd, yet I wanted to avoid any platform data if possible, as this
is a motherboard, it will not be plugged anywhere else with different
parameters.
What would you say if I did this :
- remove the gpio
- use IORESOURCE_IRQ(0) as the parent irq (as you suggested)
- use IORESOURCE_IRQ(1) as the base_irq
=> this resource would be optional
- if exists, use it as base_irq
- if doesn't exist, let base_irq = 0
Will that look correct ?
Cheers.
--
Robert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
