Subject: [PATCH v6 1/2] irqchip: imx-gpcv2: IMX GPCv2 driver for wakeup sources

From: [email-masked] (Shawn Guo)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:35:15 +0800

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:13:37PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shawn Guo [mailto:shawnguo at kernel.org]
> > Sent: 2015?7?27? 8:41
> > To: Wang Shenwei-B38339
> > Cc: shawn.guo at linaro.org; tglx at linutronix.de; jason at lakedaemon.net; Huang
> > Yongcai-B20788; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
> > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] irqchip: imx-gpcv2: IMX GPCv2 driver for wakeup
> > sources
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:07:38PM -0500, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/soc/imx/gpcv2.h b/include/soc/imx/gpcv2.h new
> > > file mode 100644 index 0000000..73d6e75
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/soc/imx/gpcv2.h
> > 
> > I do not like this header, which couples imx7d irqchip and pm driver so
> > much.  Can you please elaborate why we have to have this header?
> 
> PM driver does depend on the irqchip driver. It needs some input like enabled irqs and
> wakeup irqs to decide which module to be powered off in low power states. I am also
> considering if the header file could be removed or not. So far it seems a common place
> to define a structure which is used in both drivers is still required.

Please be more specific.  Trimming the header down to the macros and
structures/fields that are necessary to be in the header might be a good
idea.  And then we can go through them one by one to see if there is a
way to avoid them being in the header.

Shawn