On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:49:11AM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote: > On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 17:33 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 19/10/16 16:21, Jerome Brunet wrote: > > > +struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data { > > > + void __iomem *base; > > > + int index; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static irq_hw_number_t meson_parent_hwirqs[] = { > > > + 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, > > > +}; > > > > If that a guarantee that these numbers will always represent the > > parent interrupt? > > At the moment, the 3 supported SoC use these parent interrupts, but we > have absolutely no idea (or guarantee) that is will remain the same, or > even contiguous, in the upcoming SoC (like the GXM or GXL) > > I reckon, it is likely that manufacturer will keep on using these > parent irqs for a while but I would prefer not make an assumption about > it in the driver. > > If a SoC get a different set of interrupts I would have added a new > table like this and passed it to the appropriate params : > > static irq_hw_number_t meson_new_parent_hwirqs[] = { > 143, 144, 150, 151, 152, 173, 178, 179, > }; > > > It feels a bit odd not to get that information directly from > > the device tree, in the form of a device specific property. Something > > like: > > > > upstream-interrupts = <64 65 66 ... >; > > > > I wondered about putting this information in DT or in the driver for a > while. Maybe DT would be a more suitable place holder for these data > (parent irq and number of provided hwirq) but I was under the > understanding that we should now put these information in the driver > and use the compatible property to get the appropriate parameters. > > I'd love to get the view of the DT guys on this. Please describe inter-device relationships in DT when you are aware of them. The SoC-specific compatible string is more of a future-proofing thing / last restort for things we realise too late. To be clear, we should *also* have an soc-specific compatible string, but for differences we already know about, we should use DT properties. > > > +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson8b_params = { > > > + .nhwirq = 119, > > > + .source = meson_parent_hwirqs, > > > + .nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs), > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson_gxbb_params = { > > > + .nhwirq = 133, > > > + .source = meson_parent_hwirqs, > > > + .nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs), > > > +}; > > > > Same thing. How big is the variability of these structures? Are we > > going to see more of those? or is that now set into stone? > > The number of pad mapped to the controller seems to change with every > SoC version. The parent irqs have not changed so far, but as explained > above, there is no guarantee it will keep on being this way. > > So i'd say probably more of those ... > > > +Mark: what's the policy to describe this kind of things? Generally, I'd prefer that we describe this in DT rather than accumulating a set of string -> number mappings in the driver. Thanks, Mark. -- 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