[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6c3661e-36df-5ae8-eedb-1961063bcabb@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 07:24:49 +0900
From: Hyunki Koo <hyunki00.koo@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk, kgene@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
jason@...edaemon.net, maz@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Hyunki Koo <hyunki00.koo@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irqchip: define EXYNOS_IRQ_COMBINER
On 19. 12. 7. 오후 10:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 14:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 10:00:48PM +0900, Hyunki Koo wrote:
>>> From: Hyunki Koo <hyunki00.koo@...sung.com>
>>>
>>> Not all exynos device have IRQ_COMBINER.
>>> Thus add the config for EXYNOS_IRQ_COMBINER.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hyunki Koo <hyunki00.koo@...sung.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/irqchip/Kconfig | 7 +++++++
>>> drivers/irqchip/Makefile | 2 +-
>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is no changelog and versioning of this patch so I do not
>> understand how it differs with previous. It's a resend? v2? It brings
>> the confusion and looks like you're ignoring previous comments.
>>
>> Looks the same and looks like breaking Exynos platforms in the same way.
>>
>> If you not want to skip combiner on ARMv8, it makes sense, then please
>> follow the approach we did for Pinctrl drivers (PINCTRL_EXYNOS_ARM and
>> PINCTRL_EXYNOS_ARM64).
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> Ah, now I see the second patch. Still you break bisect which requires
> specific ordering of patches or squashing them into one. Optionally
> this could be default=y if ARCH_EXYNOS && ARM. I prefer just squashing
> both into one patch in this case.
you mean squashing two files arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig and
arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig into one patch
or squashing into only one file like blow?
+config EXYNOS_IRQ_COMBINER
+ bool "Samsung Exynos IRQ combiner support"
+ depends on (ARCH_EXYNOS && ARM) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default y
I prefer first one (squashing two files into one patch)
>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
>>> index ba152954324b..3ed7b7f2ae26 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
>>> @@ -499,4 +499,11 @@ config SIFIVE_PLIC
>>>
>>> If you don't know what to do here, say Y.
>>>
>>> +config EXYNOS_IRQ_COMBINER
>>> + bool "Samsung Exynos IRQ combiner support"
> Now point it to be visible. Only for COMPILE_TEST
>
>>> + depends on ARCH_EXYNOS
> Since you make it a separate option, make it COMPILE_TEST.
Is this good ?
+config EXYNOS_IRQ_COMBINER
+ bool "Samsung Exynos IRQ combiner support"
+ depends on (ARCH_EXYNOS && ARM) || COMPILE_TEST
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>>> + help
>>> + Say yes here to add support for the IRQ combiner devices embedded
>>> + in Samsung Exynos chips.
>>> +
>>> endmenu
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
>>> index e806dda690ea..60d7c7260fc3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
>>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM2835) += irq-bcm2835.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM2835) += irq-bcm2836.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_DAVINCI_AINTC) += irq-davinci-aintc.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_DAVINCI_CP_INTC) += irq-davinci-cp-intc.o
>>> -obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS) += exynos-combiner.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS_IRQ_COMBINER) += exynos-combiner.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_FARADAY_FTINTC010) += irq-ftintc010.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_HIP04) += irq-hip04.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_LPC32XX) += irq-lpc32xx.o
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists