[PATCH 15/19] mfd: Don't convert just one IRQ using irqdomain if a range is provided

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:45:50PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Lee, Arnd,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:57:27PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 07 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 01:37:26PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Friday 07 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 12:35:41PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The examples I had seen before were all just ranges of two interrupts,
> > > > and in those cases it was clear that splitting them would be best.
> > > > 
> > > > In the exampled of the ab8500-gpio driver, it looks like the resource is
> > > > not actually being used, and the gpio driver implements its own irq_chip,
> > > > so maybe we can get away with not solving this problem for now.
> > > 
> > > Understood. I'd still feel more comfortable if we didn't trash the
> > > range. I think it would be best to show the warning, and leave the
> > > range for its target driver to take care - hence the patch.
> > > 
> > > ... but it's your call.
> > 
> > I'm fine with whatever Samuel sees fit here.  My personal opinion is
> > that leaving the range alone for the child driver to do the conversion
> > would be too inconsistent and only lead to confusion with driver authors.
> Although I agree modifying the range is not very nice from the MFD core, I
> also think that the actual mapping should always be handled by MFD and not
> depend on wether the range is a singleton or not. Moreover the semantics of
> leaving the range untouched meaning that we haven't done the mappings is
> obscure.
> So I'm not taking this patch, sorry Lee.

No problem.

Would it be better if we _did_ support ranges, and map all of the
IRQs in the range instead?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog