lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/19] irqchip: atmel-aic: make unified AIC driver
Hey Milo,

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 10:07:55AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:48:23 +0900 Milo Kim <milo.kim@ti.com> wrote:
> > On 01/04/2016 06:02 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 13:28:24 +0900 Milo Kim <milo.kim@ti.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This patch-set provides unified Atmel AIC (Advanced Interrupt Controller)
> > >> driver. Currently, there are two AIC drivers, AIC and AIC5.
> > >> Each driver consists of chip specific part (irq-atmel-aic.o or
> > >> irq-atmel-aic5.o) and shared code (irq-atmel-aic-common.o).
> > >> But consolidated AIC driver is just one file driver which supports both
> > >> IRQ chip systems.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but what's the real motivation behind this rework?
> >
> > During my driver development on Atmel boards, I just found major
> > difference between two IRQ chips is how to select HW IRQ number. Other
> > parts could be merged into single driver like OMAP.
>
> Except that this major difference is a central aspect, and if you look
> at your changes, you'll see that you're introducing
> 'if (aic_is_ssr_used())' statements in pretty much all irqchip
> callbacks.
>
> As I said, I'm not against code factorization, but it's not really
> one to me, because you're adding extra conditional path all over the
> code to differentiate the two chips, which means those are not so
> similar
...
> > > Before reviewing the remaining patches, I'd like to know more about your
> > > real motivations for pushing those changes?
> >
> > Yeap, thanks for your time. My idea is simple.
> >
> > "Different IRQ chip operation can be consolidated if simple data
> > structure is used."
>
> As pointed, I don't think that's a good idea, but let's see what others
> say.
> Thomas, Jason, any comments?

I'm with Nicolas on this one. I appreciate the effort, but it's best to
discuss the proposal with at91/irqchip maintainers prior to investing so
much effort.

sorry,

Jason.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-06 16:01    [W:0.056 / U:0.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site