On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:34 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 00:42:49 +0000, > Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: 23 November 2021 09:11 > > > To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx; Rob Herring > > > <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; John Crispin <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Biwen Li <biwen.li@xxxxxxx>; Chris Brandt > > > <Chris.Brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Prabhakar Mahadev Lad > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] of/irq: Add a quirk for controllers with their own definition of interrupt-map > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 08:44:19 +0000, > > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:33 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 07:57:48 +0000, > > > > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Summarized: > > > > > > - Before the bad commit, and after your fix, irqc-rza1 is invoked, > > > > > > and the number of interrupts seen is correct, but input events > > > > > > are doubled. > > > > > > - After the bad commit, irqc-rza1 is not invoked, and there is an > > > > > > interrupt storm, but input events are OK. > > > > > > > > > > OK, that's reassuring, even if the "twice the events" stuff isn't > > > > > what you'd expect. We at least know this is a separate issue, and > > > > > that this patch on top of -rc1 brings you back to the 5.15 behaviour. > > > > > > > > > > I'd expect it to be the case for the other platforms as well. > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > BTW, what would have been the correct way to do this for irqc-rza1? > > > > I think we're about to make the same mistake with RZ/G2L IRQC > > > > support[1]? > > > > > > Indeed, and I was about to look into it. > > > > > > There are multiple ways to skin this cat, including renaming 'interrupt-map' to 'my-own-private- > > > interrupt-map'. Or use something akin the new 'msi-range' (which we could call interrupt-range), and > > > replace: > > > > > > interrupt-map = <0 0 &gic GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <1 0 &gic GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <2 0 &gic GIC_SPI 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <3 0 &gic GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <4 0 &gic GIC_SPI 8 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <5 0 &gic GIC_SPI 9 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <6 0 &gic GIC_SPI 10 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <7 0 &gic GIC_SPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > > > > > > with: > > > > > > interrupt-range = <&gic GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0 8>; > > > > > Just to clarify, do you suggest to add interrupt-range as a generic > > DT property or SoC/company specific property? > > As a generic one. I have no interest in SoC-specific stuff (though you > are free to invent your own and run it by Rob). > OK will go with a generic one. > > If you meant to add generic property where would you suggest to > > document this property? > > Ideally collocated with the rest of the interrupt properties. > OK, I will go with interrupts.txt for now. Is that OK with you Rob? (the reason I ask because interrupt-map/mask haven't been documented). Cheers, Prabhakar > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
