[PATCH v3 00/25] irq_domain generalization and refinement

[Grant Likely]

On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 10:17:48PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:35:54PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> > 
> > This patch series is ready for much wider consumption now.  I'd like
> > to get it into linux-next ASAP because there will be ARM board support
> > depending on it.  I'll wait a few days before I ask Stephen to pull
> > this in.
> 
> Grant,
> 
> Can you answer me this: does this irqdomain support require DT?

No, it should not.  Any situation where it does is a bug.

> Now, here's the thing: I believe that IRQ domains - at least as far as
> the hwirq stuff - should be available irrespective of whether we have
> the rest of the IRQ domain support code in place, so that IRQ support
> code doesn't have to keep playing games to decode from the global
> space to the per-controller number space.

Correct.  That's the intent.  My new series flushes out irq_domain quite a
bit better and gets all architectures doing the same thing if they use
irq_domains.  I've done some testing on both CONFIG_OF and !CONFIG_OF builds,
but I'm going to do some more to make sure I've not missed anything.

> I believe that would certainly help the current OMAP problems, where
> the current lack of CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN basically makes the kernel oops
> on boot.
> 
> How we fix this regression for 3.4 I've no idea at present, I'm trying
> to work out what the real dependencies are for OMAP on this stuff.
> 
> Finally, do we need asm/irq.h in our asm/prom.h ?  That's causing
> fragility between DT and non-DT builds, because people are finding
> that their DT builds work without their mach/irqs.h includes but
> fail when built with non-DT.  The only thing which DT might need -
> at the most - is NR_IRQS, but I'd hope with things like irq domains
> it doesn't actually require it.

I don't think so.  There may be a file or two that break because they're
not including everything they need, but I don't think anything in the
header requires it.

The irq_domain code is well isolated.  The header file doesn't need to
be including it.

g.