Hi Marc On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 18:37, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2020-07-28 10:18, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote: > > From: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> > > > > The PRUSS INTC has a fixed number of output interrupt lines that are > > connected to a number of processors or other PRUSS instances or other > > devices (like DMA) on the SoC. The output interrupt lines 2 through 9 > > are usually connected to the main Arm host processor and are referred > > to as host interrupts 0 through 7 from ARM/MPU perspective. > > > > All of these 8 host interrupts are not always exclusively connected > > to the Arm interrupt controller. Some SoCs have some interrupt lines > > not connected to the Arm interrupt controller at all, while a few > > others > > have the interrupt lines connected to multiple processors in which they > > need to be partitioned as per SoC integration needs. For example, > > AM437x > > and 66AK2G SoCs have 2 PRUSS instances each and have the host interrupt > > 5 > > connected to the other PRUSS, while AM335x has host interrupt 0 shared > > between MPU and TSC_ADC and host interrupts 6 & 7 shared between MPU > > and > > a DMA controller. > > > > Add logic to the PRUSS INTC driver to ignore both these shared and > > invalid interrupts. > > > > Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v3->v4: > > - Due to changes in DT bindings which converts irqs-reserved > > property from uint8-array to bitmask requested by Rob introduce > > relevant changes in the driver. > > - Merge the irqs-reserved and irqs-shared to one property since they > > can be handled by one logic (relevant change was introduced to DT > > binding). > > This isn't what I asked for in my initial review. > > I repeatedly asked for the *handling* to be common, not for the > properties to be merged. I don't mind either way, but I understood > there were two properties for a good reason. Has this reason gone? Yes, I am aware that you've asked for common handling. Nevertheless due to this change the usage of irqs-shared had to change. Previously Suman's intention was to always skip the irqs-reserved, while allowing to try getting interrupts even from irqs-shared list but in case of failure (during platform_get_irq_byname) it wasn't treated as an error. In other words: in the previous approach if the interrupt from irqs-shared was present in DT interrupts property it was treated as a valid resource. If the irqs-shared interrupt wasn't present in DT interrupts property it was skipped (similar to the irqs-reserved case). Now after your request for handling both in a common way the interpretation of irqs-shared had to change. Therefore there's no need to have seperate property for them. Now it is simpler: if some interrupt is present in irqs-reserved it will be skipped. > > Anyway, I'll come back to it once I start reviewing the series > again. > Ok, thank you, Grzegorz
