On Friday 23 August 2013, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)) { > > > + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "msi-base", > > > &pp->msi_irq_start)) { > > > + dev_err(pp->dev, "Failed to parse the number of > > > lanes\n"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > > What if an implementor want to use irq_domain method for msi_irq_start > > allocation? Is it fine to return error if msi-base is not passed from > > dt? > > I agree. This should be using an IRQ domain to represent the MSI > controller. Both Tegra and Marvell drivers do that already and if Exynos > can follow that same path it will increase the chances of refactoring > common bits. > > Also the error message doesn't quite match up with what the code is > doing. =)
Agreed. Besides the encoding of "base" irq values in the device tree is always wrong, since the numbers are not at all a hardware property but an implementation detail of how Linux currently uses interrupt numbers. When using DT probing, you *have* to use IRQ domains, and the rest of Exynos does that. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html