[PATCH] drivers: altera_edac: Guard SDRAM irq2 retrieval for Arria10 only

[Dinh Nguyen]

On 5/12/26 06:51, Nazle Asmade, Muhammad Nazim Amirul wrote:
> On 12/5/2026 7:25 pm, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/11/26 20:37, Nazle Asmade, Muhammad Nazim Amirul wrote:
>>> On 11/5/2026 7:54 pm, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/26 02:52, muhammad.nazim.amirul.nazle.asmade at altera.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Nazim Amirul <muhammad.nazim.amirul.nazle.asmade at altera.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Guard the irq2 retrieval with an of_machine_is_compatible() check so
>>>>> that platform_get_irq(pdev, 1) is only called on Arria10 platforms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nazim Amirul
>>>>> <muhammad.nazim.amirul.nazle.asmade at altera.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Niravkumar L Rabara <nirav.rabara at altera.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/edac/altera_edac.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>>>>> index 4edd2088c2db..b30302198cd4 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c
>>>>> @@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ static int altr_sdram_probe(struct platform_device
>>>>> *pdev)
>>>>>         }
>>>>>         /* Arria10 has a 2nd IRQ */
>>>>> -    irq2 = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
>>>>> +    if (of_machine_is_compatible("altr,socfpga-arria10"))
>>>>> +        irq2 = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
>>>>>         layers[0].type = EDAC_MC_LAYER_CHIP_SELECT;
>>>>>         layers[0].size = 1;
>>>>
>>>> Why? We already switch on arria10 later in the same function.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but NAK.
>>>>
>>>> Dinh
>>> This driver were used by cyclone5 and arria10. Cyclone5 only has one
>>> interrupt whereby arria10 has 2 interrupt. That is the reason why the
>>> interrupt was guard by (of_machine_is_compatible("altr,socfpga-arria10"))
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but look at line 397,
>>
>>             /* Only the Arria10 has separate IRQs */
>>           if (of_machine_is_compatible("altr,socfpga-arria10")) {
>>                   /* Arria10 specific initialization */
>>
>> Dinh
>>
>>
> Hi Dinh, That is true, but the one that we looking at now is at line 352
> which enabling the second interrupt and it is not required by cyclone5.
> Perhaps are you saying we should move the irq2 at line 352 under this
> line 397?

Yes, that would be fine.

Dinh