On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 02:13:17PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Change-Id: Ibb23878cd382af9a750d62ab49482f5dc72e3714
> Signed-off-by: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <[email protected]>
Remove the change IDs from upstream submissions. The kernel doesn't use
gerritt.
> struct pm8921 {
> - struct device *dev;
> + struct device *dev;
> + struct device *irq_dev;
Is it really useful to register a struct device purely for the interrupt
controller? I'd have expected this to be core functionality of the
device. The fact that you need to store the device at all is a bit odd
too as you're using the MFD API.
> static struct pm8xxx_drvdata pm8921_drvdata = {
> - .pmic_readb = pm8921_readb,
> - .pmic_writeb = pm8921_writeb,
> - .pmic_read_buf = pm8921_read_buf,
> - .pmic_write_buf = pm8921_write_buf,
> + .pmic_readb = pm8921_readb,
> + .pmic_writeb = pm8921_writeb,
> + .pmic_read_buf = pm8921_read_buf,
> + .pmic_write_buf = pm8921_write_buf,
> + .pmic_read_irq_stat = pm8921_read_irq_stat,
> +};
It'd seem better to indent things as per the final driver in the first
patch - this reindentation creates a lot of noise in the diff.
> goto err_read_rev;
> }
> - pr_info("PMIC revision: %02X\n", val);
> + pr_info("PMIC revision 1: %02X\n", val);
> + rev = val;
>
Again, do this in the first patch.
> +static int
> +pm8xxx_read_block(const struct pm_irq_chip *chip, u8 bp, u8 *ip)
> +{
> + int rc;
> +
> + rc = pm8xxx_writeb(chip->dev->parent,
> + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BLK_SEL, bp);
> + if (rc) {
> + pr_err("Failed Selecting Block %d rc=%d\n", bp, rc);
> + goto bail_out;
> + }
> +
> + rc = pm8xxx_readb(chip->dev->parent,
> + SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_IT_STATUS, ip);
> + if (rc)
> + pr_err("Failed Reading Status rc=%d\n", rc);
> +bail_out:
> + return rc;
> +}
The namespacing here is odd, this looks like it should be a generic API
not a block specific one.
> + /* Check IRQ bits */
> + for (k = 0; k < 8; k++) {
> + if (bits & (1 << k)) {
> + pmirq = block * 8 + k;
> + irq = pmirq + chip->irq_base;
> + /* Check spurious interrupts */
> + if (((1 << k) & chip->irqs_allowed[block])) {
> + /* Found one */
> + chip->irqs_to_handle[*handled] = irq;
> + (*handled)++;
> + } else { /* Clear and mask wrong one */
> + config = PM_IRQF_W_C_M |
> + (k << PM_IRQF_BITS_SHIFT);
> +
> + pm8xxx_config_irq(chip,
> + block, config);
> +
> + if (pm8xxx_can_print())
> + pr_err("Spurious IRQ: %d "
> + "[block, bit]="
> + "[%d, %d]\n",
> + irq, block, k);
> + }
The generic IRQ code should be able to take care of spurious interrupts
for you? It's a bit surprising that there's all this logic - I'd expect
an IRQ chip to just defer logic about which interrupts are valid and so
on to the generic IRQ code.
> #include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/pm8xxx/irq.h>
> +
> +#define NR_PM8921_IRQS 256
Traditionally this'd be namespaced like this:
+#define PM8921_NR_IRQS 256
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
