On 31 March 2012 03:36, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:19:49 +0530, Thomas Abraham [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add irq domain support for max8997 interrupts. The reverse mapping method
used is linear mapping since the sub-drivers of max8997 such as regulator
and charger drivers can use the max8997 irq_domain to get the linux irq
number for max8997 interrupts. All uses of irq_base in platform data and
max8997 driver private data are removed.

Cc: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <redacted>
Acked-by: Grant Likely <redacted>
---
?arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-nuri.c ? ?| ? ?4 --
?arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-origen.c ?| ? ?1 -
?drivers/mfd/max8997-irq.c ? ? ? ? ? | ? 61 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
?drivers/mfd/max8997.c ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?1 -
?include/linux/mfd/max8997-private.h | ? ?4 ++-
?include/linux/mfd/max8997.h ? ? ? ? | ? ?1 -
?6 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-nuri.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-nuri.c
index 7ac81ce..b21d85d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-nuri.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-nuri.c

@@ -1077,12 +1077,8 @@ static struct platform_device nuri_max8903_device = {

?static void __init nuri_power_init(void)
?{
? ? ? int gpio;
- ? ? int irq_base = IRQ_GPIO_END + 1;
? ? ? int ta_en = 0;

- ? ? nuri_max8997_pdata.irq_base = irq_base;
- ? ? irq_base += MAX8997_IRQ_NR;
-
? ? ? gpio = EXYNOS4_GPX0(7);
? ? ? gpio_request(gpio, "AP_PMIC_IRQ");
? ? ? s3c_gpio_cfgpin(gpio, S3C_GPIO_SFN(0xf));

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-origen.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-origen.c
index 827cb99..d3b2e9d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-origen.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-origen.c

@@ -424,7 +424,6 @@ static struct max8997_platform_data __initdata origen_max8997_pdata = {

? ? ? .buck1_gpiodvs ?= false,
? ? ? .buck2_gpiodvs ?= false,
? ? ? .buck5_gpiodvs ?= false,
- ? ? .irq_base ? ? ? = IRQ_GPIO_END + 1,

? ? ? .ignore_gpiodvs_side_effect = true,
? ? ? .buck125_default_idx = 0x0,

diff --git a/drivers/mfd/max8997-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/max8997-irq.c
index 09274cf..00390a1 100644
--- a/drivers/mfd/max8997-irq.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/max8997-irq.c

@@ -142,7 +142,8 @@ static void max8997_irq_sync_unlock(struct irq_data *data)

?static const inline struct max8997_irq_data *
?irq_to_max8997_irq(struct max8997_dev *max8997, int irq)
?{
- ? ? return &max8997_irqs[irq - max8997->irq_base];
+ ? ? struct irq_data *data = irq_get_irq_data(irq);
+ ? ? return &max8997_irqs[data->hwirq];
?}

Haha, this is kind of bogus now. ?There are only two users of this
function, and *both* of them already have the irq_data pointer.
Instead of this, delete this function entirely and make each caller
derefernce max8997_irqs directly:

? ? ? ?const struct max8997_irq_data *irq_data = &max8997_irqs[data->hwirq];

Otherwise, looks good. ?After fixing you can add my:

Acked-by: Grant Likely <redacted>

Hi Grant,

Thanks for the suggestion. I have modified the code accordingly and
included your ack.

Regards,
Thomas.