[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31d57d94-9701-1c46-6ce2-c43eaa16f444@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 23:45:00 +0200
From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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
Hi!
On 20/10/2019 13:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> 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).
>> Yes, the below patch resolved both GPIO and DMA issues.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Previous patch (selecting IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY) is not
>> required.
>>
>> If you re-spin all 3 ep93xx-relevant patches together, you can put my
>> Tested-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
>> on them.
> Awesome, thanks for testing.
>
> I only remember sending two patches for ep93xx:
> ARM: ep93xx: make mach/ep93xx-regs.h local
> ARM: ep93xx: enable SPARSE_IRQ
>
> and have added the Tested-by tag to them now. Is there a third one
> I missed?
The patch shifting the IRQ-numbering by one is a prerequisite for the two
above patches, right?
--
Alex.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists