On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:12 PM David Gibson
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:04:17PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > An interrupt provider (an actual interrupt-controller node or an
> > interrupt nexus) should have both #address-cells and #interrupt-cells
> > properties explicitly defined.
> >
> > Add an extra test for this. We check for the #interrupt-cells property
> > already, but this does not cover every controller so far, only those that
> > get referenced by an interrupts property in some node. Also we miss
> > interrupt nexus nodes.
> >
> > A missing #address-cells property is less critical, but creates
> > ambiguities when used in interrupt-map properties, so warn about this as
> > well now.
> > This removes the now redundant warning in the existing interrupts test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > checks.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > tests/bad-interrupt-controller.dts | 7 +++++++
> > tests/run_tests.sh | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 tests/bad-interrupt-controller.dts
> >
> > diff --git a/checks.c b/checks.c
> > index 4b3c486..23faca5 100644
> > --- a/checks.c
> > +++ b/checks.c
> > @@ -1547,6 +1547,28 @@ static bool node_is_interrupt_provider(struct node *node)
> >
> > return false;
> > }
> > +
> > +static void check_interrupt_provider(struct check *c,
> > + struct dt_info *dti,
> > + struct node *node)
> > +{
> > + struct property *prop;
> > +
> > + if (!node_is_interrupt_provider(node))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + prop = get_property(node, "#interrupt-cells");
> > + if (!prop)
> > + FAIL(c, dti, node,
> > + "Missing #interrupt-cells in interrupt provider");
>
> I like splitting the check for #interrupt-cells into a separate check
> from the 'interrupts' property check.
>
>
> > + prop = get_property(node, "#address-cells");
> > + if (!prop)
> > + FAIL(c, dti, node,
> > + "Missing #address-cells in interrupt provider");
>
> However, I'm a bit less sold on checking #address-cells here.
> Although #address-cells is necessary for interrupt-maps, there are a
> lot of cases with just a single, simple interrupt controller that's
> not a bus root so it's not obvious why it would need to have an
> #address-cells property at all.
>
> So, I think you do want to check #address-cells only where you
> actually do need it (the interrupt provider is the target of an
> interrupt-map).
That seems okay for me. I'd expect that's a whole lot less warnings
generated. If not, then maybe should still be separate.
Rob
