lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 09/13] irqchip: spear_shirq: Kill the clear_reg nonsense
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > None of the chips has a ACK register.
>
> I need to recheck on this after looking at datasheets. Arranging for
> them, will revert by tomorrow.
>
> > The code brainlessly fiddles
> > with the enable register, so it might even reenable a disabled
> > interrupt at least on spear300.
>
> Ack/Clear register is only configured for SPEAr320, how will it
> make a difference to SPEAr300 ?

Sorry, my bad. misread the code. So this wants a different
changelog.

> And for SPEAr320 as well, the offset mentioned in code for clear
> register is different then ENABLE register.

I still don't see why you'd write something into the status register
on 320, which is RO according to documentation.

> > @@ -150,13 +141,6 @@ static struct spear_shirq spear320_shirq
> > .nr_irqs = 7,
> > .mask = ((0x1 << 7) - 1) << 0,
> > .disabled = 1,
> > - .regs = {
> > - .enb_reg = SPEAR320_INT_ENB_MASK_REG,
> > - .reset_to_enb = 1,
> > - .status_reg = SPEAR320_INT_STS_MASK_REG,
> > - .clear_reg = SPEAR320_INT_CLR_MASK_REG,
> > - .reset_to_clear = 1,
> > - },
>
> Was removing .regs completely intentional?
>
> I don't see these registers getting added again in later patches.

Yes, because that block is NEVER used because disabled = 1

Thanks,

tglx



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-20 10:21    [W:0.152 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site