On 23/05/2013 14:13, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Dear Russell King - ARM Linux,
On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:18:25 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I notice arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c makes use of some of the register
definitions:
at91_irq_suspend();
pr_debug("AT91: PM - wake mask %08x, pm state %d\n",
/* remember all the always-wake irqs */
(at91_pmc_read(AT91_PMC_PCSR)
| (1 << AT91_ID_FIQ)
| (1 << AT91_ID_SYS)
| (at91_extern_irq))
& at91_aic_read(AT91_AIC_IMR),
state);
at91_irq_suspend() is in arch/arm/mach-at91/irq.c already, so there's no
reason that fragment can't be moved there.
The problem is that the goal of the patch set is to move
arch/arm/mach-at91/irq.c into drivers/irqchip/.
However, if you move that chunk of code to drivers/irqchip/irq-at91.c,
you are using at91_pmc_read() which is defined in
arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91_pmc.h. So,
drivers/irqchip/irq-at91.c would have to include such an header file,
which is something we want to avoid since drivers/ code should not
include something in <mach/...>, as it breaks multiplatform kernels.
So, I'm afraid, simply moving this chunk of code in at91_irq_suspend()
doesn't make the thing any better.
What about keeping the former at91_aic.h in arch/arm/match-at91 and copy
the definitions we need in drivers/irqchip/irq-at91.c ?
This way we get an aic irqchip driver independant of any specific
machine headers and keep the non dt boards and pm drivers without any
change.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
