From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753801Ab1I0Xac (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:30:32 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:57160 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752815Ab1I0Xaa (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:30:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:30:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Mark Salter cc: LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/24] C6X: interrupt handling In-Reply-To: <1317155405-26235-13-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <1317155405-26235-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com> <1317155405-26235-13-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org B1;2601;0cOn Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Mark Salter wrote: > diff --git a/arch/c6x/kernel/irq.c b/arch/c6x/kernel/irq.c > +static raw_spinlock_t core_irq_lock; static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(...) please, so you can get rid of the raw_spin_lock_init(...) below. > +static int core_host_map(struct irq_host *h, unsigned int virq, > + irq_hw_number_t hw) > +{ > + if (hw < 4 || hw >= NR_PRIORITY_IRQS) > + return -1; Proper error code please, i.e -EINVAL or such > + > + irq_set_status_flags(virq, IRQ_LEVEL); > + irq_set_chip_and_handler(virq, &core_chip, handle_level_irq); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static struct irq_host_ops core_host_ops = { > + .map = core_host_map, > +}; > + > +void __init init_IRQ(void) > +{ > + struct device_node *np; > + > + raw_spin_lock_init(&core_irq_lock); See above. Aside of that I'm still not too happy about the of_/irqhost/domain code replication and the cleanup which needs to be done after that has been solved. Though if you and Grant have a plan for that, I'm not in the way. Btw, keeping people who have been added to previous review comments of a particular patch in the CC makes everyones life easier. Thanks, tglx