drm-intel - Linux driver for Intel graphics

Age	Commit message (Collapse)	Author	Files	Lines
2012-03-22	mfd: Move twl-core IRQ allocation into twl[4030\|6030]-irq files	Benoit Cousson	1	-2/+2
	During DT adaptation, the irq_alloc_desc was added into twl-core, but due to the rather different and weird IRQ management required by the twl4030, it is much better to have a different approach for it. The issue is that twl4030 uses a two level IRQ mechanism but handles all the PWR interrupts as part of the twl-core interrupt range. It ends up with a range of 16 interrupts total for CORE and PWR. The other twl4030 functionalities already have a dedicated driver and thus their IRQs and irqdomain can and should be defined localy. twl6030 is using a single level IRQ controller and thus does not require any trick. Move the irq_alloc_desc and irq_domain_add_legacy in twl4030-irq and twl6030-irq. Allocate together CORE and PWR IRQs for twl4030-irq. Conflicts: drivers/mfd/twl-core.c Signed-off-by: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-29	mfd: Fix twl-irq function declaration warnings	G, Manjunath Kondaiah	1	-0/+10
	Fixes following sparse warnings for twl4030 and twl6030 irq files. drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c:783:5: warning: symbol 'twl4030_init_irq' was not declared. Should it be static? drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c:863:5: warning: symbol 'twl4030_exit_irq' was not declared. Should it be static? drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c:873:5: warning: symbol 'twl4030_init_chip_irq' was not declared. Should it be static? drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c:226:5: warning: symbol 'twl6030_init_irq' was not declared. Should it be static? drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c:290:5: warning: symbol 'twl6030_exit_irq' was not declared. Should it be static? Signed-off-by: G, Manjunath Kondaiah <manjugk@ti.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>