[PATCH 16/16] ARM: imx: enable SPARSE_IRQ for imx platform

[Shawn Guo]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 03:21:11PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:47:44PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:16:38PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > > > Ideally i would see we keep the code as before that still using hw irqs
> > > > > for device resource definition, but convert to linux virt irq in a standard
> > > > > irqdomain map way when adding devices by calling imx_add_platform_device.
> > > > > 
> > > > What's the point of hiding this irq number conversion in
> > > > imx_add_platform_device?  
> > > It's standard and safe way.
> > > 
> > Why do you think it's standard?
> Why do you think using irq_find_mapping to get the linux virt irq is not
> standard way?
> 
I never said using irq_find_mapping to get the linux irq is not
standard way.  What I said is using it during adding platform_device
is nothing standard.

> > Care to show me a couple of examples
> > that make this conversion when adding platform device?
> > 
> I did not search any example, currently it's just my idea based on my understanding
> on irq domain design. Maybe i should give a patch to describe my idea,
> then we can discuss on the patch.
> 
I understand your idea, and I just do not think it's a good/right one.

> Or did you see any example on using shift way to define device irq resource?
> Then i can look at it.
> 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/171075

> > > > The irq number used in resource definition
> > > > should simply just be Linux irq.  Doing what you suggest here will
> > > No, it's should be hw irq.
> > 
> > You are simply wrong here.  Nothing more to respond on this.
> >
> If using linux virt irq, how do we avoid the issues i said in my last reply?
> 
Do not make up any issue.  I'm only interesting in the practical issues.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn