[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8085c2b9-f824-4404-9adf-fb8be09e5a86@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:40:07 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] irqdomain: Allow giving name suffix for domain
On 6/3/24 15:19, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> Here, when talking about 'parent IRQ', I was referring to ERRB or INTB
> as 'parent IRQ'. My thinking was that, the regmap IRQ instance uses INTB
> or ERRB as it's parent IRQ, which it splits (demuxes) to separate "child
> IRQs" for the rest of the PMIC drivers to use. I'd be grateful if better
> terms were suggested so that readers can stay on same page with me.
>
> After talking with Mark:
Sorry, I forgot the link:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zjzt8mOW6dO_7XNV@finisterre.sirena.org.uk/
>
> we both thought it'd be cleaner to have separate regmap IRQ instances
> for the ERRB and INTB lines. This makes sense (to me) because a lot of
> (almost all of?) the regmap IRQ internal data describe the IRQ line
> related things like registers related to the IRQ line, IRQ line polarity
> etc. Hence, making single regmap-IRQ instance to support more than one
> <please, add what is the correct term for INTB / ERRB like line> would
> require duplicating a plenty of the regmap data. This would make
> registering an regmap-IRQ entity much more complex and additionally it'd
> also complicate the internals of the regmap-IRQ. It'd be a bit like
> trying to fill and drink a six-pack of lemonade at once, instead of
> going a bottle by bottle :)
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists