On 01/25/2012 08:13 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > On 1/23/2012 10:53 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On 01/23/2012 03:07 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >>> >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> Here's the second RFC for the irq_domain patches. I could use some >>> help testing now. I still expect there will be a few bugs. The >>> series is based on v3.3-rc1, and I've pushed it out to my git server: >>> >>> git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6.git irqdomain/next >> >> Can you post to linux-arm-kernel too so people are aware of this work >> and stop posting dead-end irqdomain patches. > > Good point, I have two pending series that are using the > irq_domain_add() so far, so it will be good to have that branch pulled > in arm-soc. > >> I tested what you had as of this morning and it works fine for me. Looks >> like the only diff is the VExpress code. I'm working on rebasing my >> domain support for generic irqchip now. > > In fact your generic irqchip should even avoid us to use > irq_domain_add_legacy() since both GPIO and OMAP3 intc are already using > the irqchip. > > I guess you are not going to change the interface so the patches I did > on your previous branch to try them should be good already, isn't it?
I've got it rebased on top of Grant's tree. I will send it out soon. One problem that still remains is it breaks x86 and any platform using generic irq chip, but not selecting IRQ_DOMAIN. Grant, do you plan to enable IRQ_DOMAIN for x86 in your series? MIPS may also need fixing. Rob _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
