On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 05:35:51PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Paul Mundt <let...@linux-sh.org> wrote: > > So how exactly does this interact with the existing sh_intc code? Or is > > there some reason why you have opted to bypass it in order to implement a > > simplified reduced-functionality version of INTC support focused only on > > external pins? If both are used together this is going to be a nightmare > > for locking, and it's also non-obvious how the IRQ domains on both sides > > will interact. > > > > This needs a lot more explanation. > > Recent GIC-based SoCs do not make use of INTC for any on-chip I/O > devices. This driver is meant to be used as a layer between the actual > IRQ pin and the GIC. Anything else needs the full driver. The existing > non-DT INTC driver can happily coexist with this driver like it does > in the case of sh73a0 here: > > [PATCH 02/03] ARM: shmobile: INTC External IRQ pin driver on sh73a0 > Ok, thanks for clarifying.
I suppose the main concern is how quickly this will simply turn in to a deviated partial implementation of the full driver as newer SoCs begin deviating from your simplified case, and we basically end up reimplementing sh_intc anyways. > The driver is not meant to be used with INTC-only based systems like > sh7372 and the SH architecture. I would be very happy if someone could > get their shit together and fix up DT support for the common INTC > code. This has not happened yet though. So if you know anyone with > time to spare then feel free to suggest them to work together with > Iwamatsu-san to get the DT version of the code reviewed together with > Linaro. > I haven't heard or seen anything new on that in some time, so I assumed the work had stalled. I'm not sure why there wasn't more effort put in to DT support for the INTC code rather than simply coming up with a temporary bypass shim, and I'm not sure why you think this work is blocked by anyone (unless you're just referring to a general lack of resources). In any event, I'm not sure what the best option for the interim is. I suppose we can merge the irqchips until the INTC stuff catches up, but then we are probaby going to run in to a situation where they either have to co-exist, or the irqchips are removed and the sh_intc code has to carry a compat shim to deal with those DT bindings. Neither of those options seem particularly appealing to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
