Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] irqchip/aspeed-i2c-ic: Add I2C IRQ controller for Aspeed

[Brendan Higgins]

>> +     i2c_ic->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(
>> +                     node, ASPEED_I2C_IC_NUM_BUS,
>> +                     &aspeed_i2c_ic_irq_domain_ops, NULL);
>
> nit: can you have at least one argument following the function name?
> Even if checkpatch shouts out you?

Makes no difference to me.

>
>> +     if (!i2c_ic->irq_domain)
>> +             return -ENOMEM;
>
> All these error paths are leaking the initial memory allocation.

Whoops, forgot I am not using devm_*.

>
>> +
>> +     i2c_ic->irq_domain->name = "aspeed-i2c-domain";
>> +
>> +     irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(i2c_ic->parent_irq,
>> +                                      aspeed_i2c_ic_irq_handler, i2c_ic);
>> +
>> +     pr_info("i2c controller registered, irq %d\n", i2c_ic->parent_irq);
>> +
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(ast2400_i2c_ic, "aspeed,ast2400-i2c-ic", aspeed_i2c_ic_of_init);
>> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(ast2500_i2c_ic, "aspeed,ast2500-i2c-ic", aspeed_i2c_ic_of_init);
>>
>
> Once you've fixed the trivial bug above, this should be good to go.
> What's the merging strategy? Can I take the initial two patches, and let
> someone else deal with the rest? Or do you want the whole series to be
> kept together?

I think it makes most sense to keep it together and let Wolfram merge the
whole thing since the I2C patches won't work without this and I would not
want to make the merging process unnecessarily complicated.