Hi Rob, On 11/05/16 16:51, Rob Herring wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Jon, >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> The "nvidia,tegra210-agic" string can be taken as describing any >>>> Tegra-210 specific integration quirks, though I agree that's also not >>>> fantastic for extending PM support beyond Tegra 210 and variants >>>> thereof. >>>> >>>> So maybe the best approach is bailing out in the presence of clocks >>>> and/or power domains after all, on the assumption that nothing today has >>>> those properties, though I fear we may have problems with that later >>>> down the line if/when people describe those for the root GIC to describe >>>> those must be hogged, even if not explicitly managed. >>> >>> On further testing, by bailing out in the presence of clocks and/or >>> power-domains, the problem I now see is that although the primary gic-400 >>> has been registered, we still try to probe it again later as it matches >>> the platform driver. One way to avoid this would be ... >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/irq.c b/drivers/of/irq.c >>> index e7bfc175b8e1..631da7ad0dbf 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/of/irq.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/irq.c >>> @@ -556,6 +556,8 @@ void __init of_irq_init(const struct of_device_id *matches) >>> * its children can get processed in a subsequent pass. >>> */ >>> list_add_tail(&desc->list, &intc_parent_list); >>> + >>> + of_node_set_flag(desc->dev, OF_POPULATED); >>> } >> >> That sounds like the right thing to do to me... > > Seems fine to me, but it would be a problem since this is a global > decision if you wanted to have some hand-off from an "early driver" to > a platform driver. I guess setting the flag could move to drivers that > need it although I don't think drivers should be touching the flags. Isn't this the other way around? Setting this flag means that I have been populated and so don't bother creating a platform device for this device as it isn't needed. A by-product if this, is that if we did happen to have a platform driver for the irqchip that also has an early driver, then the hand-off would never happen if the early init was successful. The driver would still have to decide whether to hand-off and to do that it would need to return an error from the early driver [0]. >>> If this is not appropriate then I guess I will just need to use >>> "tegra210-agic" for the compatibility flag. >> >> As I want this for plain gic-400, I'd be unhappy ;-) > > IMO, the plain gic-400 should not have these dependencies and you > should use SoC specific compatible strings should you need to deal > with this problem. It is fine for my case, but it does mean I cannot say ... compatible = "tegra210-agic", "gic-400"; ... because this will always match the early driver (unless we do something like I have suggested above). So I would have ... compatible = "tegra210-agic"; Cheers Jon [0] http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=146237938725709&w=2 -- 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
