From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752436AbdLKEm6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:42:58 -0500 Received: from lelnx193.ext.ti.com ([198.47.27.77]:32267 "EHLO lelnx193.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752368AbdLKEmz (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:42:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI: dwc: pci-dra7xx: Fix legacy IRQ handling To: Lorenzo Pieralisi CC: Bjorn Helgaas , Rob Herring , Tony Lindgren , KISHON VIJAY ABRAHAM , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" References: <20171201061311.16691-1-vigneshr@ti.com> <20171201061311.16691-5-vigneshr@ti.com> <20171208183523.GB1885@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> From: Vignesh R Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:12:52 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171208183523.GB1885@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 09 December 2017 12:05 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:43:11AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote: >> Legacy INTD IRQ handling is broken on dra7xx due to fact that driver >> uses hwirq in range of 1-4 for INTA, INTD whereas IRQ domain is of size >> 4 which is numbered 0-3. Therefore when INTD IRQ line is used with >> pci-dra7xx driver following warning is seen: >> >> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:342 irq_domain_associate+0x12c/0x1c4 >> error: hwirq 0x4 is too large for dummy >> >> Fix this by using pci_irqd_intx_xlate() helper to translate the INTx 1-4 >> range into the 0-3 as done in other PCIe drivers. >> >> Also, iterate over all the INTx bits and call their respective IRQ >> handlers before clearing the status register. > > It seems to me that you are fixing two bugs with one patch and therefore > I would ask you to split it in two or explain to me why we should > consider lumping them together. > Ok, I will split the patch into two in v2. -- Regards Vignesh