[PATCH] irqchip: armada: Fix chained per-cpu interrupts

[Maxime Ripard]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:57:46PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> On 26/02/2015 12:11, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:52:52AM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> >>>> The following function is called as soon as the MPIC is used as a secondary
> >>>> interrupt controller. So it will be the case for the Armada 375 and Armada 39x too. It
> >>>> also seems to not be related to be used in an SoC or an other, so I think that the
> >>>> function name is misleading. What about just using mpic_secondary_init and
> >>>> mpic_cpu_notifier ?
> >>>>
> >>>> I know we prefixed the mpic function with armada_370_xp or armada_xp, but looking
> >>>> back, it was a mistake.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know, that code needs to be run only in the cases where the
> >>> MPIC is a secondary interrupt controller, which rules out the armada
> >>> 370/XP.
> >>>
> >>> I was trying to make such a distinction, but indeed the wording is
> >>> quite poor.
> >>>
> >>> Do you have some suggestions?
> >>
> >> Yes using  mpic_secondary_init and  mpic_cpu_notifier, because what is important
> >> is the fact that the MPIC is used as a secondary interrupt controller.
> > 
> > The thing is, the armada xp notifier is called
> > armada_xp_mpic_secondary_init, with in this case secondary meaning
> > secondary CPU. Won't that be really confusing to have another callback
> > called mpic_secondary_init, what would only be called on !armada
> > 370/XP, and with secondary meaning secondary interrupt controller?
> 
> I see let's call it mpic_cascaded_init then.

ACK.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20150226/fe2f2396/attachment.sig>