On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 01:07:23 +0100,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > +static void
> > > > +mt7530_setup_mdio_irq(struct mt7530_priv *priv)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct dsa_switch *ds = priv->ds;
> > > > + int p;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (p = 0; p < MT7530_NUM_PHYS; p++) {
> > > > + if (BIT(p) & ds->phys_mii_mask) {
> > > > + unsigned int irq;
> > > > +
> > > > + irq = irq_create_mapping(priv->irq_domain, p);
> > >
> > > This seems odd. Why aren't the MDIO IRQs allocated on demand as
> > > endpoint attached to this interrupt controller are being probed
> > > individually? In general, doing this allocation upfront is an
> > > indication that there is some missing information in the DT to perform
> > > the discovery.
> >
> > This is what Andrew's mv88e6xxx does, actually. In addition, I also check
> > the phys_mii_mask to avoid creating mappings for unused ports.
>
> It can be done via DT, using the standard interrupt property, so long
> as you use of_mdiobus_register(np).
>
> But when you have an 7 port switch, and a nice simple mapping, port 0
> PHY using interrupt 0, you can save a lot of device tree boilerplate
> by doing it in code. And when you have 4 of these switches, it gets
> very boring adding all the DT to just wire up the interrupts 28
> interrupts.
I guess this is depends whether the most usual case is to have all
these interrupts being actively in use or not. Most interrupts only
use a limited portion of their interrupt space at any given time.
Allocating all interrupts and creating mappings upfront is a waste of
memory.
If the use case here is that all these interrupts will be wired and
used in most cases, then upfront allocation is probably not a problem.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
