MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220111002314.15213-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <20220111002314.15213-7-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <0bfff433-e216-6f9d-d225-9f07ac48013a@xs4all.nl> <CA+V-a8sszaUP6o6LJgDX49oPGVQFOc6G0vtY3p6sz4JNm=xB4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <df687e82-3e9e-4df6-ac3c-ee2e1355779c@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <df687e82-3e9e-4df6-ac3c-ee2e1355779c@xs4all.nl>
From:   "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 19:30:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+V-a8tuVoYmLbi45d70MBhVDKdg4eUFbE64bTja1WyNmZ89Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] media: davinci: vpif: Use platform_get_irq_optional()
 to get the interrupt
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>
Cc:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        linux-media <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Hans,

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:45 AM Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> On 11/01/2022 11:43, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> > Hi Hans,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:25 AM Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Prabhakar,
> >>
> >> On 11/01/2022 01:23, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> >>> platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, ..) relies on static
> >>> allocation of IRQ resources in DT core code, this causes an issue
> >>> when using hierarchical interrupt domains using "interrupts" property
> >>> in the node as this bypasses the hierarchical setup and messes up the
> >>> irq chaining.
> >>>
> >>> In preparation for removal of static setup of IRQ resource from DT core
> >>> code use platform_get_irq_optional().
> >>>
> >>> While at it, propagate error code in case devm_request_irq() fails
> >>> instead of returning -EINVAL in vpif_display.c.
> >>
> >> Please note that this patch clashes with [1], for which I just posted a PR [2].
> >>
> > Ouch, I think I had a comment for patch#2 which needed to be addressed
> > (I was nitpicking anyway) so I was hoping this will go in first.
>
> Patch 2 was fine since that change makes sense when looking at patch 3.
>
Agreed.

> >
> >> So once [2] is merged you'll need to rebase this patch.
> >>
> > Ok, do you want me to just re-send this patch alone or the entire series?
>
> Either works.
>
Will just send this  alone patch as v3.

Cheers,
Prabhakar