Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] irq/of: Cleanup and Enchance irq_domain support.
From: Rob Herring
Date: Fri Dec 30 2011 - 10:30:50 EST
On 12/14/2011 08:32 PM, David Daney wrote:
> From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Back in early Nov. I send the first version of this patch set. Now
> things are heating up again in the world of irq_domain, so I wanted to
> try to get some closure on the issues I had. The Octeon patch is
> included here to show how I am using irq_domain, but is part of a much
> larger effort to merge Octeon device tree support.
> The basic problem I am attempting to solve is using irq domains when
> there is a 'non-linear' mapping of hwirq <--> irq within a domain.
> Octeon has a single set of irq numbers that is used across two
> different implementations of the interrupt controller as well as more
> than 10 different SOCs all which use different subsets of the irq
> number space. The result is that the hwirq to irq mapping function
> contains many gaps and discontinuities, it is really quite random.
> The existing irq domain infrastructure assumes a continuous linear
> mapping of hwirq to irq that can be encapsulated by the irq_base,
> hwirq_base and nr_irq elements of struct irq_domain. This is not
> suitable for the Octeon implementation.
> The gist of my change is to add an optional iterator function to
> irq_domain_ops which knows how to iterate over the irq numbers in a
> given domain. For simple linear domains (those currently supported),
> we iterate using the current method based on irq_base, hwirq_base and
> Summary of the patches:
> 1) Get rid of some unused code to make subsequent changes simpler.
> 2) Cleanup the data type used by various hwirq functions and users.
> 3) Add the irq iterator, and fix up the ARM GIC code to use it instead
> of the current irq_domain_for_each_irq().
> 4) Add the Octeon users of the interface.
> In an earlier exchange, Rob Herring had said:
> ... Handling sparse irqs is a potentially common problem, so we
> should address that in the core irqdomain code.
> Which is what this patch set is doing.
> There was a suggestion that perhaps having .to_irq() return a magic
> value if there was no mapping would also work. However I prefer this
> approach as it separates the concepts of iteration and mapping of irq
> Please comment.
Can we first have a patch that just allows irq domains to be enabled on
MIPS. It collides because of multiple versions of irq_create_of_mapping.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/