On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 03:44 +0000, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 2:44 AM > > To: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@xxxxxxx>; > > benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; paulus@xxxxxxxxx; mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; > > kstewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: robh@xxxxxxxxxx; keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tyreld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > joe@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] powerpc/fsl: Add supported-irq-ranges for P2020 > > > > On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 15:18 +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > > > MPIC on NXP (Freescale) P2020 supports following irq > > > ranges: > > > > 0 - 11 (External interrupt) > > > > 16 - 79 (Internal interrupt) > > > > 176 - 183 (Messaging interrupt) > > > > 224 - 231 (Shared message signaled interrupt) > > > > Why don't you convert to the 4-cell interrupt specifiers that make dealing > > with these ranges less error-prone? > > Ok , will do if we agree to have this series as per comment on other patch. If you're concerned with errors, this would be a good things to do regardless. Actually, it seems that p2020si-post.dtsi already uses 4-cell interrupts. What is motivating this patchset? Is there something wrong in the existing dts files? > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c > > > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c > > > index 1006950..49ff348 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_rdb.c > > > @@ -57,6 +57,11 @@ void __init mpc85xx_rdb_pic_init(void) > > > MPIC_BIG_ENDIAN | > > > MPIC_SINGLE_DEST_CPU, > > > 0, 256, " OpenPIC "); > > > + } else if (of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,P2020RDB-PC")) { > > > + mpic = mpic_alloc(NULL, 0, > > > + MPIC_BIG_ENDIAN | > > > + MPIC_SINGLE_DEST_CPU, > > > + 0, 0, " OpenPIC "); > > > } else { > > > mpic = mpic_alloc(NULL, 0, > > > MPIC_BIG_ENDIAN | > > > > I don't think we want to grow a list of every single revision of every > > board in > > these platform files. > > One other confusing observation I have is that "irq_count" from platform > code is given precedence over "last-interrupt-source" in device-tree. > Should not device-tree should have precedence otherwise there is no point > using " last-interrupt-source" if platform code passes "irq_count" in > mpic_alloc(). Maybe, though I don't think it matters much given that last-interrupt-source was only added to avoid having to pass irq_count in platform code. -Scott -- 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
