[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANAwSgTW7qZiSKRJuW-AqW9BKBrjsUMm8qqa1VKrxjUJFDG6zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:58:56 +0530
From: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>
To: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@...sung.com>
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, bzolnier@...il.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
justinstitt@...gle.com, krzk@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, lukasz.luba@....com,
morbo@...gle.com, nathan@...nel.org, nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com,
rafael@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/7] thermal/drivers/exynos: Refactor IRQ clear logic
using SoC-specific config
Hi Mateusz
Thanks for your review comments..
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 18:48, Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@...sung.com> wrote:
>
> > A unified
> > exynos4210_tmu_clear_irqs() implementation now replaces the previous
> > reliance on SoC-specific functions and hardcoded register mappings.
>
> Well, right now we actually add exynos{4412,5420,5433}_tmu_clear_irqs :)
> But those are quite similar except irq_map values, so maybe they can be
> unified into one?
>
No, the BIT fields for RISE and FALL are a bit different for SoC
So that's the reason for splitting, the IRQ handle should be clean and compact.
So make them simple.
> Kind regards,
> Mateusz Majewski
Thanks
-Anand
Powered by blists - more mailing lists