[PATCH] slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Use platform_get_irq() to get the interrupt

[Lad, Prabhakar]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 2:59 PM Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/03/2022 14:14, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 4:42 AM Srinivas Kandagatla
> > <srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/03/2022 10:23, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:16 AM Srinivas Kandagatla
> >>> <srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24/12/2021 16:13, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> >>>>> platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, ..) relies on static
> >>>>> allocation of IRQ resources in DT core code, this causes an issue
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you saying that we should not be using platform_get_resource(pdev,
> >>>> IORESOURCE_IRQ, ...) on drivers that support DT?
> >
> > We should be using platform_get_irq(). (period, on all platform drivers)
> >
>
> Thanks, I see why is it preferred.
>
> Code as of now will not prevent drivers from calling
> platform_get_resource(..IORESOURCE_IRQ).
>
> Are we planning to enforce this in any way?
>
> >>>>> when using hierarchical interrupt domains using "interrupts" property
> >>>>> in the node as this bypasses the hierarchical setup and messes up the
> >>>>> irq chaining.
> >>>>
> >>>> Should this not be fixed in the DT core itself?
> >>>>
> >>> Yes the plan is to fix in the DT core itself (refer [0]).
> >>>
> >>> [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/patch/20211209001056.29774-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com/
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In preparation for removal of static setup of IRQ resource from DT core
> >>>>> code use platform_get_irq().
> >>>>
> >>>> I would prefer this patch to be part of the series that removes IRQ
> >>>> resource handling from DT core.
> >>>>
> >>> Since there are too many users (which are in different subsystems)
> >>> getting this all in single series would be a pain. As a result it is
> >>> split up into individual subsystems.
> >> Am happy for this to be included in that series,
> >> TBH, this patch make more sense along with that series than by itself.
> >
> > No it doesn't. This is no different than converting to devm_* variants
> > or other cleanups to match current preferred styles.
> >
> > Treewide cross subsystem clean-ups are a huge pain to merge. Why would
> > you ask for that when it is clearly not necessary?
>
> Only reason for this ask was to understand how platform_get_resource()
> will change moving forward, if this is something that you are planning
> to include in your fix patches.
>
> I can go ahead and apply the patch, if that helps.
>
Yes please, that would be helpful.

Cheers,
Prabhakar