[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c57d9cc03b6a430234c0016bf78fa22@artur-rojek.eu>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2023 14:56:47 +0200
From: Artur Rojek <contact@...ur-rojek.eu>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: hd64461: fix virq offsets
On 2023-07-09 14:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Artur!
>
> On Sun, 2023-07-09 at 14:13 +0200, Artur Rojek wrote:
>> A recent change to start counting SuperH IRQ #s from 16 breaks support
>> for the Hitachi HD64461 companion chip.
>>
>> Move the offchip IRQ base and HD64461 IRQ # by 16 in order to
>> accommodate for the new virq numbering rules.
>>
>> Fixes: a8ac2961148e ("sh: Avoid using IRQ0 on SH3 and SH4")
>> Signed-off-by: Artur Rojek <contact@...ur-rojek.eu>
>> ---
>> arch/sh/cchips/Kconfig | 4 ++--
>> arch/sh/include/asm/hd64461.h | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/sh/cchips/Kconfig b/arch/sh/cchips/Kconfig
>> index efde2edb5627..9659a0bc58de 100644
>> --- a/arch/sh/cchips/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/sh/cchips/Kconfig
>> @@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ endchoice
>> config HD64461_IRQ
>> int "HD64461 IRQ"
>> depends on HD64461
>> - default "36"
>> + default "52"
>> help
>> - The default setting of the HD64461 IRQ is 36.
>> + The default setting of the HD64461 IRQ is 52.
>>
>> Do not change this unless you know what you are doing.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/hd64461.h
>> b/arch/sh/include/asm/hd64461.h
>> index afb24cb034b1..6d85db6cf54b 100644
>> --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/hd64461.h
>> +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/hd64461.h
>> @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@
>> #define HD64461_NIMR HD64461_IO_OFFSET(0x5002)
>>
>> #define HD64461_IRQBASE OFFCHIP_IRQ_BASE
>> -#define OFFCHIP_IRQ_BASE 64
>> +#define OFFCHIP_IRQ_BASE 80
>> #define HD64461_IRQ_NUM 16
>>
>> #define HD64461_IRQ_UART (HD64461_IRQBASE+5)
>
> I think it would be better to write this as (64 + 16) for consistency
> with the other changes made by Sergey.
Sure, I will send v2 with this change, although the same can't be
applied to HD64461_IRQ value above, so some inconsistency will exist
either way.
>
> Adrian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists