On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:56:50PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:17:20PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

This patch is based on "ARM: arch-shmobile: Use multiple irq vectors for SDHI"

It removes multiplexing of the SDHI vectors and names each IRQ source
to allow the SDHI driver to used source-specific handlers.

This is untested as I do not have access to a working g4evm.

Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>

---

Requires "mmc: sdhi: Allow specific IRQ sources to use corresponding handlers."

*** compile tested only ***
---
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-g4evm.c |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/intc-sh7377.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++-----------------

This second file should not be here, right?

I believe that the g4evm uses the sh7377 and that the multiplexing of
SDHIinterrupts for the 7377 need to be removed in order to provide multiple
SDHI irq sources.

Am I missing something?

Maybe not, I just misread your patch description as that it only should 
touch the board itself. Since intc-sh7377.c has to be touched too, this 
should be tested, I think. And I don't have any 7377 hardware available. 

I agree that this needs to be tested (or dropped).
And its annoying that neither of us have the hardware at this time.

Also, would anything break, if we split this into three patches? The first 
one would only modify g4evm.c with demuxed IRQs but without names. Then 
the sdhi/tmio driver will install the generic ISR for each of them, and in 
fact all interrupts would still only come on one IRQ. Then the second 
patch would modify intc-sh7377.c, after which IRQs will be routed to 
different vectors. And the third patch would then add names to IRQs. But 
maybe Paul prefers a single patch for all that.

Personally I think a single patch is the way to go.
Though I have no strong feelings on the issue.

With regards to your question about splitting the patch. Adding the names
as a separate patch should be fine for the reason you describe. However, I
suspect the other split you suggest would not work.

In any case, two patches would reflect the way the changes
have been made on the 7372 (mackerel and ap4evb).