On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:57:17AM -0700, Wesley Terpstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > +RISC-V Hart-Level Interrupt Controller (HLIC) > >> > +--------------------------------------------- > >> > + > >> > +RISC-V cores include Control Status Registers (CSRs) which are local to each > >> > +hart and can be read or written by software. Some of these CSRs are used to > >> > +control local interrupts connected to the core. > >> > + > >> > +Typical examples of local interrupts on a RISC-V core include: software IPI > >> > +interrupts, timer interrupts, and a link to the PLIC interrupt controller. > > > > So IIUC those interrupts are routed directly to the HLIC, and are (only) > > controlled thought the HLIC? > > Yes. You can have a local interrupt that goes directly to a specific > core, not via the PLIC. > > > Is the HLIC architecturally mandated? i.e. is this guaranteed to be > > present on any RISC-V implementation? > > It's in the RISC-V privileged specification. Therefore, if a riscv > core can run linux it will have these CSRs. > > > Does the presence of the HLIC imply the presence of a PLIC (or > > vice/versa)? > > No. SiFive implementations always have a PLIC, though. > > > Typically, the per-cpu and platform-wide parts of the > > top-level interrupt controller are fairly intimately coupled. > > They are coupled if they both exist. The privileged specification does > explicitly call out interrupts 9 and 11 in the HLIC for attaching the > PLIC. > > > You'll need to allocate the "riscv" vendor prefix in > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt > > @palmer: Can you add this? > > > What about the flags? > > What flags? Edge vs level, active high vs active low. Typically some of these are programmable, and are described as flags in the interrupt-specifier. See the examples in: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt > > Are all HLIC interrupts edge triggered (or level triggered)? > > HLIC = level. PLIC = both. Ok. Given that, flags aren't necessary for the HLIC, and the interrupt-specifier is fine as-is. > >> > +RISC-V cores typically include a PLIC, which route interrupts from multiple > >> > +devices to multiple hart contexts. The PLIC is connected to the interrupt > >> > +controller embedded in a RISC-V core via the interrupt-related CSRs. > > > > Do you mean that the PLIC is connected to the HLIC, or that the HLIC is > > also managed in part through CSRs? > > Both. The HLIC is entirely manager through CSRs. The PLIC is managed > through a memory mapped interface. The PLIC is attached to the HLIC. So do any CSRs affect the state of the PLIC? If it's just MMIO, the mention of CSRs above is just a little confusing. It might be best to just say "The PLIC is connect to the HLIC embedded in each RISC-V core". > >> > +Required properties: > >> > +- compatible : "riscv,plic0" > >> > +- #address-cells : should be <0> > >> > +- #interrupt-cells : should be <1> > > > > As with the HLIC, what about the flags? > > Still unsure what flags we're talking about. As covered above for the HLIC. It sounds like we'd need these to distinguish edge/level interrupts, unless that's fixed at integration time and you can determine it from the PLIC itself? > >> > +- riscv,ndev : Specifies the number of interrupts attached to the PLIC > > > > Why do we need to know this? > > > > I suspect this ia actually the number of interrupts implemented in the > > PLIC, rather than the number of interrupts attached. i.e. the PLIC can > > be implemented with a subset of the potential registers/bits. Is that > > correct? > > You're in principle correct, although these are probably always the same. For now, perhaps. Let's not embed an assumption we cannot guarantee. > > If so, something like "riscv,num-interrupts" would be better, along with > > a clearer description. > > Uhm. I suppose we can change this. However, it would requires changes > to quite a number of riscv repositories. I believe this is also > included in the riscv platform specification. A better description is > easy, do we really need to change the key? It's not too much of a problem, but if we end up having to change anything else from the proposed bindings, those trees are going to require updates anyway. If we can, I would like to change this to keep things as clear as possible from the outset. [...] > > You will need to be explicit about the order of interrupts in this > > property. i.e. which interrupt is routed to which context? > > Yes. Order and position matter. Ok. Please update the binding to explicitly define the ordering requirement. [...] > > Also, please consider how you will handle the case when the Linux > > logical CPU ID is not the same as the physical ID, and how you will > > handle physical IDs being sparse. > > We already deal with this. If the interrupt is '-1', we skip it. > That's done in plic.c: > if (parent.args[0] == -1) continue; // skip context holes If this is what we expect people to do, it needs to be documented in the binding. Does this mean that you expect Linux logical CPU IDs to be equal to physical CPU IDs in all cases? That's going to be painful for very sparse ID ranges, and won't work for cases like kexec/kdump where you cannot guarantee which physical CPU will end up being CPU0 in the new kernel. I would strongly advise that you explicitly describe the relationship using phandles to CPU nodes. I would also advise that you try to decouple the physical CPU IDs and Linux logical IDs. While assuming they're the same might simplify things today, it will create longer term maintenance problems and get in the way of a number of features. 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
