Hi Mark,
2017-08-21 19:25 GMT+09:00 Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>:
>> +static struct irq_chip uniphier_aidet_irq_chip = {
>> + .name = "AIDET",
>> + .irq_mask = irq_chip_mask_parent,
>> + .irq_unmask = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
>> + .irq_eoi = irq_chip_eoi_parent,
>> + .irq_set_type = uniphier_aidet_irq_set_type,
>
> Is this irqchip only used in a uniprocessor system? If not, how is the
> interrupt affinity managed without a irq_set_affinity callback?
>
After consideration, some questions popped up.
We can set other hooks, for example, .irq_{enable,disable} if we like.
.irq_enable = irq_chip_enable_parent,
.irq_disable = irq_chip_disable_parent,
I know the parent (GIC) implements unmask/mask instead of enable/disable,
but this is also out of the scope of this driver.
I am not familiar with the difference between unmask/mask and enable/disable.
IIUC, the difference is that
if enable/disable hooks are missing, IRQs are masked lazily.
If a child irqchip implemented enable/disable,
IRQs would be masked immediately. So, in irq-domain hierarchy,
a child irqchip need to have a good insight about its parent
which is be better, unmask/mask or enable/disable.
> Nit: please use irq_domain_create_hierarchy.
I'd like to know your intention about your commit
2a5e9a072da6469a37d1f0b1577416f51223c280
Is that mean, irq_domain_add_hierarchy will be deprecated
some time in the future?
If I grep under drivers/irqchip/,
most drivers are currently using irq_domain_add_hierarchy(),
and this provides a shorter form for DT-based drivers.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
--
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
