On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:34:53PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 22/04/16 12:22, Mark Rutland wrote: >> [snip] >> >> >>>> I am not sure if it will be popular to add Tegra specific clock names >> >>>> to the GIC DT docs. However, in that case, then possibly the only >> >>>> alternative is to move the Tegra AGIC driver into its own file and >> >>>> expose the GIC APIs for it to use. Then we could add our own DT doc >> >>>> for the Tegra AGIC as well (based upon the ARM GIC). >> >>> >> >>> The clock-names don't seem right to me, as they sound like provide names >> >>> or global clock line names rather than consumer-side names ("clk" and >> >>> "apb_pclk"). >> >> >> >> Yes that would be fine with me. >> > >> > Ok; if we model the apb_pclk as owned by the AXI switch (which it is), >> > then there's no change for the GIC binding, short of the additional >> > compatible string as an extension of "arm,gic-400", as we already model >> > that clock in the GIC-400 binding. >> >> I have been re-working this based upon the feedback received. In the GIC >> driver we have the following definitions ... >> >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(gic_400, "arm,gic-400", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(arm11mp_gic, "arm,arm11mp-gic", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(arm1176jzf_dc_gic, "arm,arm1176jzf-devchip-gic", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a15_gic, "arm,cortex-a15-gic", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a9_gic, "arm,cortex-a9-gic", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a7_gic, "arm,cortex-a7-gic", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init); >> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(pl390, "arm,pl390", gic_of_init); >> >> >> If I have something like the following in my dts ... >> >> agic: interrupt-controller@702f9000 { >> compatible = "nvidia,tegra210-agic", "arm,gic-400"; >> ... >> }; >> >> The problem with this is that it tries to register the interrupt controller >> early during of_irq_init() before the platform driver has chance to >> initialise it. > > Probe order strikes again... > >> To avoid this I got rid of the "nvidia,tegra210-agic" string and added >> the following for the platform driver ... >> >> static const struct of_device_id gic_match[] = { >> { .compatible = "arm,arm11mp-gic-pm", .data = &arm11mp_gic_data }, >> { .compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic-pm", .data = &cortexa15_gic_data }, >> { .compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic-pm", .data = &cortexa9_gic_data }, >> { .compatible = "arm,gic400-pm", .data = &gic400_data }, >> { .compatible = "arm,pl390-pm", .data = &pl390_data }, >> {}, >> }; >> >> It is not ideal as now we have a *-pm variant of each compatible string :-( > > Yeah, that's a non-starter. :( > >> Another option would be to add some code in gic_of_init() to check for the >> presence of a "clocks" node in the DT binding and bail out of the early >> initialisation if found but may be that is a bit of a hack. Or the presence of a power-domains property... > I fear that someone may validly have a clocks property in their root GIC > node, at which point things would fall apart. I was under the impression > this was the case for some Renesas boards (though I didn't find an > example in tree). We don't have the GIC clocks in the GIC nodes yet, as there's no suitable mechanism (e.g. CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF) in upstream yet to prevent them from being disabled ("unused" clocks are disabled). Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html