On 2016年07月12日 16:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 3:04:42 PM CEST Wan Zongshun wrote:

quoted

quoted

Ideally, this should just go away once we use SPARSE_IRQ.

This platform also can use SPARSE_IRQ? this just a simple irq map and no
more irq number in this Soc.

SPARSE_IRQ is implied by ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, so we will have to
use it once that gets enabled.

Your new irqchip driver already handles IRQ domains, so it will
work out of the box with SPARSE_IRQ, but you have to change the
reference to "NR_IRQS" into something else.

I've prototyped a patch series to enable ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM,
I hope you can start working from what I have and get it to run.

I go through the ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM and SPARSE_IRQ related codes, but I 
find I also have to define the NUC900_NR_IRQS firstly like below, so 
that I can init the .nr_irq.

+#if !defined(CONFIG_SOC_NUC970)
  #define NUC900_NR_IRQS		(IRQ_ADC+1)
+#else
+#define NUC900_NR_IRQS		62
+#endif

  DT_MACHINE_START(nuc900_dt, "Nuvoton NUC900 (Device Tree Support)")
         .dt_compat      = nuc900_dt_compat,
+       .nr_irqs        = NUC900_NR_IRQS,
  MACHINE_END

and then in my irqchip driver, I will use the NUC900_NR_IRQS:

+aic_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, NUC900_NR_IRQS,
+				    &aic_irq_domain_ops, NULL);


Is that a right usage?

	Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel