Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] irqchip: convert ls-extirq to a platform driver

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Thomas,

On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 07:36:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13 2026 at 17:33, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 17:58, Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Thomas' comments on patch 1 that the commit message is telling us
> > the conclusion without telling us what the problem is.
> >
> > However, between this solution and Alexander's, this is clearly preferable,
> > because it does not break device trees.
> 
> I'm fine with that, though the extra cleanups Alexander did are nice...
> 
> > I think this patch set has stalled possibly due to the holiday season, but my
> > understanding that a v2 is due with an updated commit message and nothing else,
> > correct?
> 
> Yes. I've marked it "wait for update" and that's the state since
> Dec. 5th.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx

Thanks for the response. I've since looked at the code, and Alexander's
cleanups are more than "nice", they are required, because when you
convert a driver from IRQCHIP_DECLARE() to platform_driver, you
introduce the possibility for it to be unbound from the device, and when
you do that, the memory that ls_extirq_probe() has allocated needs to be
freed.

Ioana's patch doesn't do that; Alexander's does (although possibly
unintended). I suspect the best parts of their approaches needs to be
squashed into a single change and both authors credited (separate
changes would mean introducing the memory leak just to fix it in the
next patch).

Ioana, Alexander, could you please start a discussion to see who can
submit the follow up to this thread?

Thanks!
Vladimir