On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:17 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 04:06:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:41 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Since 041284181226 ("of/irq: Allow matching of an interrupt-map local
> > > to an interrupt controller"), a handful of interrupt controllers have
> > > stopped working correctly. This is due to the DT exposing a non-sensical
> > > interrupt-map property, and their drivers relying on the kernel ignoring
> > > this property.
> > >
> > > Since we cannot realistically fix this terrible behaviour, add a quirk
> > > for the limited set of devices that have implemented this monster,
> > > and document that this is a pretty bad practice.
> > >
> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: John Crispin <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Biwen Li <biwen.li@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Chris Brandt <chris.brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Sander Vanheule <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Notes:
> > > v2: Switched over to of_device_compatible_match() as per Rob's
> > > request.
> >
> > Thanks for the update!
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/of/irq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/irq.c
> >
> > > @@ -159,12 +179,16 @@ int of_irq_parse_raw(const __be32 *addr, struct of_phandle_args *out_irq)
> > > /*
> > > * Now check if cursor is an interrupt-controller and
> > > * if it is then we are done, unless there is an
> > > - * interrupt-map which takes precedence.
> > > + * interrupt-map which takes precedence if we're not
> > > + * in presence of once of these broken platform that
> >
> > one
>
> and 'platforms'. Will fixup.
>
> >
> > > + * want to parse interrupt-map themselves for $reason.
> > > */
> > > bool intc = of_property_read_bool(ipar, "interrupt-controller");
> > > + bool imap_abuse;
> > >
> > > imap = of_get_property(ipar, "interrupt-map", &imaplen);
> > > - if (imap == NULL && intc) {
> > > + imap_abuse = imap && of_device_compatible_match(ipar, of_irq_imap_abusers);
> >
> > ... = intc && imap && of_device_compatible_match(...)
>
> Why? Then we are comparing intc twice because we still need it for the
> intc && !imap case.
I ended up rewriting it like this:
- if (imap == NULL && intc) {
+ if (intc &&
+ (!imap || of_device_compatible_match(ipar,
of_irq_imap_abusers))) {
Rob
