Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1658314292-35346-1-git-send-email-lvjianmin@loongson.cn> <874jzcyrjl.wl-maz@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <874jzcyrjl.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:25:23 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAhV-H4LXGE1mPQDf1wbuaCuB1G02RG1JA-B78+pNTPwwwKPWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V18 00/13] irqchip: Add LoongArch-related irqchip drivers
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@loongson.cn>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Marc,

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 7:03 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:51:19 +0100,
> Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@loongson.cn> wrote:
> >
> > LoongArch is a new RISC ISA, which is a bit like MIPS or RISC-V.
> > LoongArch includes a reduced 32-bit version (LA32R), a standard 32-bit
> > version (LA32S) and a 64-bit version (LA64). LoongArch use ACPI as its
> > boot protocol LoongArch-specific interrupt controllers (similar to APIC)
> > are already added in the ACPI Specification 6.5(which may be published in
> > early June this year and the board is reviewing the draft).
> >
> > Currently, LoongArch based processors (e.g. Loongson-3A5000) can only
> > work together with LS7A chipsets. The irq chips in LoongArch computers
> > include CPUINTC (CPU Core Interrupt Controller), LIOINTC (Legacy I/O
> > Interrupt Controller), EIOINTC (Extended I/O Interrupt Controller), PCH-PIC
> > (Main Interrupt Controller in LS7A chipset), PCH-LPC (LPC Interrupt Controller
> > in LS7A chipset) and PCH-MSI (MSI Interrupt Controller).
>
> [...]
>
> OK, that's 4 versions in quick succession, so I suggest we stop the
> bikeshedding and focus on getting this actually merged.
>
> I'm going to stick this in a branch and throw it at -next. Any change
> will need to go on top of it, no rebasing. If anything that breaks
> cannot be fixed easily, I will drop the branch.
Thank you very much for this series finally get merged.
But there is a question that has puzzled me for a long time so I want
to consult with you: Why exporting fwnode_handle in the driver is
acceptable but exporting irqdomain is not? In my opinion, exporting
irqdomain is more simple and direct because it can avoid
irq_find_matching_fwnode() in the consumer side.

Huacai
>
> Thanks,
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
>