svn commit: r301266 - head/sys/arm/freescale/imx

[Svatopluk Kraus]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Andrew Turner <andrew at fubar.geek.nz> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:05:55 +0000 (UTC)
> Svatopluk Kraus <skra at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
>> Author: skra
>> Date: Fri Jun  3 11:05:55 2016
>> New Revision: 301266
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/301266
>>
>> Log:
>>   Postpone allocation of IRQ resource to the time when interrupt
>>   controller devices are attached. This has already been done for
>>   bus_setup_intr().
>>
>>   There was no doubt that if someone wants to setup an interrupt,
>>   corresponding interrupt controller device must already be attached.
>>   However, the same must be valid for allocation of an interrupt
>> resource unless the allocation is done blindly, without any
>> information that such interrupt even exists. While it was done this
>> blind way before, it won't be possible after next INTRNG change.
>>
>> Modified:
>>   head/sys/arm/freescale/imx/imx6_anatop.c
>>
>> Modified: head/sys/arm/freescale/imx/imx6_anatop.c
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- head/sys/arm/freescale/imx/imx6_anatop.c  Fri Jun  3
>> 10:28:06 2016 (r301265) +++
>> head/sys/arm/freescale/imx/imx6_anatop.c      Fri Jun  3 11:05:55
>> 2016  (r301266) @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$");
>>  static struct resource_spec imx6_anatop_spec[] = {
>>       { SYS_RES_MEMORY,       0,      RF_ACTIVE },
>> -     { SYS_RES_IRQ,          0,      RF_ACTIVE },
>
> Why not mark it as optional?

The interrupt resource must be allocated in any case. So, I do not see
any reason why to make it RF_OPTIONAL.

>
> Andrew