[PATCH v9 2/5] irqchip/aspeed-i2c-ic: Add I2C IRQ controller for Aspeed
brendanhiggins at google.com
Sat Jun 3 04:29:07 AEST 2017
>> + i2c_ic->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(
>> + node, ASPEED_I2C_IC_NUM_BUS,
>> + &aspeed_i2c_ic_irq_domain_ops, NULL);
> nit: can you have at least one argument following the function name?
> Even if checkpatch shouts out you?
Makes no difference to me.
>> + if (!i2c_ic->irq_domain)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
> All these error paths are leaking the initial memory allocation.
Whoops, forgot I am not using devm_*.
>> + i2c_ic->irq_domain->name = "aspeed-i2c-domain";
>> + irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(i2c_ic->parent_irq,
>> + aspeed_i2c_ic_irq_handler, i2c_ic);
>> + pr_info("i2c controller registered, irq %d\n", i2c_ic->parent_irq);
>> + return 0;
>> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(ast2400_i2c_ic, "aspeed,ast2400-i2c-ic", aspeed_i2c_ic_of_init);
>> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(ast2500_i2c_ic, "aspeed,ast2500-i2c-ic", aspeed_i2c_ic_of_init);
> Once you've fixed the trivial bug above, this should be good to go.
> What's the merging strategy? Can I take the initial two patches, and let
> someone else deal with the rest? Or do you want the whole series to be
> kept together?
I think it makes most sense to keep it together and let Wolfram merge the
whole thing since the I2C patches won't work without this and I would not
want to make the merging process unnecessarily complicated.
More information about the openbmc