[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2586ebb42daf66877335adaad4b4d3e6@agner.ch>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 18:32:22 +0100
From: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: shawn.guo@...aro.org, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux@....linux.org.uk, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
jason@...edaemon.net, olof@...om.net, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mark.rutland@....com, pawel.moll@....com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
galak@...eaurora.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] irqchip: nvic: support routable irq domain ops
On 2014-12-03 11:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 December 2014 01:12:03 Stefan Agner wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_NVIC
>> +extern const struct irq_domain_ops *nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops;
>> +static inline void __init register_routable_domain_ops
>> + (const struct irq_domain_ops *ops)
>> +{
>> + nvic_routable_irq_domain_ops = ops;
>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ARM_NVIC */
>>
>
> As you mentioned, this conflicts with the gic specific declaration.
> Why not remove the #ifdef here and rename the function to
> nvic_register_routable_domain_ops() ?
>
> If that doesn't work, I guess we need something more generic
> and move the routable_irq_domain_ops to some common location.
>
This would move the ifdef to the MSCM driver code. I thought of having a
generic function to call, no matter what base IRQ chip is used.
Anyway, as tglx suggested in patch 3/12, I will try to use the IRQ
domain hierarchy stuff...
--
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists