[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3UztT5aqDTiBNDssHWcdYQNqbhiY_hxJ+AHuM54hgCWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 22:44:18 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
Cc: Hubert Feurstein <hubert.feurstein@...tec.at>,
Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ARM: ep93xx: enable SPARSE_IRQ
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:24 PM Alexander Sverdlin
<alexander.sverdlin@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 22:08:40 +0200
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> > > # cat /proc/interrupts
> > > CPU0
> > > 39: 146 VIC 7 Edge eth0
> > > 51: 162161 VIC 19 Edge ep93xx timer
> > > 52: 139 VIC 20 Edge uart-pl010
> > > 53: 4 VIC 21 Edge ep93xx-spi
> > > 60: 0 VIC 28 Edge ep93xx-i2s
> > > Err: 0
> >
> > I guess that is partial success: some irqs do work ;-)
>
> Yep, VIC1 is working, while VIC0 is not.
>
> > The two interrupts that did not get registered are for the
> > dmaengine driver, and that makes sense given the error
> > message about the DMA not working. No idea how
> > that would be a result of the irq changes though.
>
> Seems, that it has exposed some incompatibilities of
> starting IRQ 0 in EP93xx platform fir VIC0 and VIC code
> itself, which assumes 0 means "auto assignment" (refer
> to vic_init()).
Ah, that makes sense. so all interrupt numbers need to
be shifted by a fixed number (e.g. 1) like we did for
other platforms (see attachment).
Arnd
View attachment "ep93xx_vic.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (6251 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists