From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:25:52 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Re: Linkstation Mini and __machine_arch_type problem, not booting since 3.8 In-Reply-To: References: <97db3502cd014faf1c710b1cc0fe8848@dolka.fr> <1434446447.4785.7.camel@dolka.fr> <1434593555.13334.14.camel@dolka.fr> <558278A8.2050406@arm.com> <1434677895.4767.11.camel@dolka.fr> <5583DD23.90505@arm.com> <1434716194.17448.28.camel@x60s> <20150619131315.GR7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20150619152552.GF2936@io.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:46:45PM +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote: > Le 2015-06-19 15:13, Russell King - ARM Linux a ??crit??: > >On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:16:34PM +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote: ... > >>I was not talking about the irq handler, but the irq initialization > >>routine (on orion5x, orion_irq_init calls irq_alloc_generic_chip > >>with 0), which takes the starting irq number and may warn when it is > >>zero (well, it may also start allocating at zero but never use it, > >>so this may not be a totally correct assumption, but I think this > >>comes close, and it's just a warning). > > > >It needs fixing nevertheless - arguments along the lines of "this > >used to work" don't work for this topic. > > > >The simple answer is to adjust the initialisation to bump the IRQ > >numbers up by one, and them adjust the interrupt numbers in > >arch/arm/mach-whatever/include/asm/irqs.h also up by one. That's > >far easier to do than spending ages trying to argue against the > >"IRQ0 is not valid" issue, only to ultimately get nowhere, and end > >up with that as the only way forward anyway. > > Do not misunderstand me: I am not at all for keeping the situation > like this! What I ask is just for users to be notified of this new > requirement: for my case, my board simply couldn't boot anymore, > without any explanation. If there was a message along the lines ???You > are setting up IRQs starting from 0, which is not supported by the > kernel anymore??? just before crashing, maybe it would help debugging > the issue. > > I could try to write a patch for it, but I was first wondering if this > is a good idea or not. Let's just get the dts patch reviewed and merged first. Russell actually wrote the patch to do what he's describing for mach-dove. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-December/309684.html Although, it looks like it never got updated for submission... http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-December/311800.html thx, Jason.