please do not take the rant below personally. You just happen to
trigger it.
On Thu, 2 May 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:+static void orion_irq_mask(struct irq_data *irqd)
+{
+ unsigned int irq = irqd_to_hwirq(irqd);
+ unsigned int irq_off = irq % 32;
+ int reg = irq / 32;
+ u32 val;
+
+ val = readl(orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
+ writel(val& ~(1<< irq_off), orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
+}
+
+static void orion_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *irqd)
+{
+ unsigned int irq = irqd_to_hwirq(irqd);
+ unsigned int irq_off = irq % 32;
+ int reg = irq / 32;
+ u32 val;
+
+ val = readl(orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
+ writel(val | (1<< irq_off), orion_irq_base[reg] + ORION_IRQ_MASK);
+}
I'm really tired of looking at the next incarnation of an OF/DT irq
chip driver, which reimplements stuff which I have consolidated in the
generic irq chip implementation with a lot of effort.
Just look at the various implementations in drivers/irqchip/ and find
out how similar they are. Moving code to drivers/irqchip/ does not
make an excuse for reestablishing the mess which was addressed by the
generic irq chip implementation.
Can you - and that means all of you ARM folks - please get your gear
together and add the missing features to the generic irq chip
implementation? I'm not going to accept more of that OF/DT frenzy.