* Thierry Reding <thierry.red...@gmail.com> [140411 11:46]: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:29:36PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> wrote: > > > Currently we get the following kind of errors if we try to use interrupt > > > phandles to irqchips that have not yet initialized: > > > > > > irq: no irq domain found for /ocp/pinmux@48002030 ! > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at drivers/of/platform.c:171 > > > of_device_alloc+0x144/0x184() > > > Modules linked in: > > > CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.12.0-00038-g42a9708 #1012 > > > (show_stack+0x14/0x1c) > > > (dump_stack+0x6c/0xa0) > > > (warn_slowpath_common+0x64/0x84) > > > (warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24) > > > (of_device_alloc+0x144/0x184) > > > (of_platform_device_create_pdata+0x44/0x9c) > > > (of_platform_bus_create+0xd0/0x170) > > > (of_platform_bus_create+0x12c/0x170) > > > (of_platform_populate+0x60/0x98) > > > > > > This is because we're wrongly trying to populate resources that are not > > > yet > > > available. It's perfectly valid to create irqchips dynamically, so let's > > > fix up the issue by populating the interrupt resources at the driver probe > > > time instead. > > > > > > Note that at least currently we cannot dynamically allocate the resources > > > as bus > > > specific code may add legacy resources with > > > platform_device_add_resources() > > > before the driver probe. At least omap_device_alloc() currently relies on > > > num_resources to determine if legacy resources should be added. Some of > > > these > > > will clear automatically when mach-omap2 boots with DT only, but there are > > > probably other places too where platform_device_add_resources() modifies > > > things before driver probe. > > > > > > This patch was discussed quite a bit earlier, but so far it seems we don't > > > have any better options to fix the problem. For the earlier discussion, > > > please see: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/22/520 > > > > There is a newer solution here which Grant seemed happier with: > > > > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1403.2/03666.html > > I wonder why Grant seems to be happier with that solution than with my > original proposal. That new solution does essentially the same thing. > One of the main issues raised during review of my original proposal was > that it had to modify the core, but this new solution does that as well. > > Another thing that people weren't happy about was that my solution was > more intrusive because it required a bunch of changes to the of_irq_*() > helpers to make them propagate a proper error code. The new solution > doesn't do that, but instead works around the lack of proper error > propagation by trying to find an IRQ domain (which the of_irq_*() > helpers will do anyway).
Yeah the problem I see with the patches above is that there's nothing wrong with the irq subsystem. Replied along those lines to the thread above. Cheers, Tony -- 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/
