Skip to content

OMAP: Update nr_irqs field in machine descriptors

Tony Lindgren linux-arm-kernel linux-omap 1 version New

Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]

Versions newest first

  1. v1 Latest0 of 2 patches 0 repliesNew

Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet

None of the 2 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.

Reviews trailers per patch

No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.

Read the v1 thread

Cover letter [PATCH 0/2] OMAP: Update nr_irqs field in machine descriptors
Quoted 37 lines · Nicolas Pitre
Quoted 26 lines · Tony Lindgren
Quoted 25 lines · S, Venkatraman
Quoted 13 lines · Benoit

Hi Venkat,

Quoted 9 lines · Venkatraman

As part of an effort to get single ARM kernel binary [1], multiple ?definitions of NR_IRQS under various platforms have to be reconciled and abstracted away from common code.

This patch series takes the small step of populating the machine descriptors with the pre-existing nr_irqs field. Eventually, the common irq handler code will only look at this field and not the compile time constant.

Quoted 5 lines

Not related to this patch, but still on that topic. The current NR_IRQS depends as well on board stuff, like for example : the Phoenix IRQs:TWL6030_IRQ_BASE, TWL6040_CODEC_IRQ_BASE.
Is there a plan to get rid of this static defines?

Currently, the goal is to get rid of the singleton nature of NR_IRQS. Then it just becomes a property of the platform, and the arm common code should not see this define. This cleanup has to be done across multiple SoCs, not just OMAP.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines

After I get to complete some meaningful cleanup of NR_IRQS, I can look into the static defines that you mention.

I suggest we wait on this patch as the NR_IRQS should be the board specific true number of interrupts including chained interrupts from external devices like twl. So just setting it to NR_IRQS does not help much. Also, the board-*.c files will be going aways with device tree at some point.

Quoted 3 lines

This is prerequisite to some other cleanup orthogonal to DT being worked in parallel. I would prefer if DT wasn't a serialization point for this.

I see. How about let's populate the real number of interrupts for the known boards then while at it.

Tony