[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vda7LTR=8eUki3yXEk5ia8va2Ma6Pqgj-4v6nSphNZjow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2021 18:56:22 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] soc: ti: smartreflex: Use platform_get_irq_optional()
to get the interrupt
On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 4:08 AM Lad Prabhakar
<prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com> wrote:
>
> platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, ..) relies on static
> allocation of IRQ resources in DT core code, this causes an issue
> when using hierarchical interrupt domains using "interrupts" property
> in the node as this bypasses the hierarchical setup and messes up the
> irq chaining.
>
> In preparation for removal of static setup of IRQ resource from DT core
> code use platform_get_irq_optional().
...
> + ret = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: failed to get IRQ resource\n", __func__);
> + return ret;
Almost fine, but you should exclude this from the deferred probe, so switch to
return dev_err_probe(...);
> + }
> + if (ret > 0)
> + sr_info->irq = ret;
...
> + ret = 0;
I do not see the context, is it really necessary?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists