Hi Marc,
thank you for taking time to review this patch!
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:01 PM Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -15,6 +19,19 @@
> >
> > #define LTQ_EBU_BUSCON0 0x0060
> > #define LTQ_EBU_BUSCON_WRDIS BIT(31)
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON 0x0090
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_PCCARD_ON BIT(0)
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_IREQ_RISING_EDGE 0x2
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_IREQ_FALLING_EDGE 0x4
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_IREQ_BOTH_EDGE 0x6
>
> So BOTH_EDGE is actually (RISING_EDGE | FALLING_EDGE). It'd be nice to
> express it this way.
I only notice this now - thank you for the hint
v2 will have this cleaned up
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_IREQ_DIS 0x8
>
> What does "DIS" mean?
after reading all of your comments it may be "disable edge detection"
I don't have access to the datasheet but I'll ask someone at Intel (Lantiq)
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_IREQ_HIGH_LEVEL_DETECT 0xa
> > +#define LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_IREQ_LOW_LEVEL_DETECT 0xc
>
> Again, these two are (DIS | RISING) and (DIS | FALLING).
understood, v2 will use a better name for DIS (assuming there's a
better name) and I'll convert the macros based on your suggestion
[...]
> > + switch (flow_type & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK) {
> > + case IRQ_TYPE_NONE:
> > + val |= LTQ_EBU_PCC_CON_IREQ_DIS;
> > + break;
>
> I'm not sure IRQ_TYPE_NONE makes much sense here. What's the expected
> semantic?
if it's "disable edge detection" then this "case" will be removed
[...]
> > + default:
> > + pr_err("Invalid trigger mode %x for IRQ %d\n", flow_type,
> > + d->irq);
>
> irq_set_type will already complain in the kernel log, no need to add
> an extra message.
I'll drop this in v2, thank you for pointing this out
[...]
> > +static void ltq_ebu_irq_handler(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_domain *domain = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
> > + struct irq_chip *irqchip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
> > +
> > + chained_irq_enter(irqchip, desc);
> > +
> > + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(domain, 0));
>
> Having an irqdomain for a single interrupt is a bit over the top... Is
> that for the convenience of the DT infrastructure?
yes, I did it to get DT support
please let me know if there's a "better" way (preferably with another
driver as example)
[...]
> > + irq_create_mapping(domain, 0);
>
> Why do you need to perform this eagerly? I'd expect this interrupt to
> be mapped when it is actually claimed by a driver.
I don't remember why I added it, it may be left-over from copying from
another driver
in v2 I'll try to drop it
> > +
> > + irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(irq, ltq_ebu_irq_handler, domain);
>
> And there is no HW initialisation whatsoever? I'd expect, at the very
> least, the sole interrupt to be configured as disabled/masked.
I can add that. is there any "best practice" on what I should
initialize (just disable it or also set a "default" mode like
LEVEL_LOW)?
Martin
