Hi Geert, On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:29 PM Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Geert, > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:54 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Prabhakar, > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:53 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Document RZ/G2UL (R9A07G043) IRQC bindings. The RZ/G2UL IRQC block is > > > identical to one found on the RZ/G2L SoC. No driver changes are > > > required as generic compatible string "renesas,rzg2l-irqc" will be > > > used as a fallback. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > --- > > > Note, renesas,r9a07g043u-irqc is added we have slight difference's compared to RZ/Five > > > - G2UL IRQCHIP (hierarchical IRQ domain) -> GIC where as on RZ/Five we have PLIC (chained interrupt > > > domain) -> RISCV INTC > > > > I think this difference is purely a software difference, and abstracted > > in DTS through the interrupt hierarchy. > > Does it have any impact on the bindings? > > > > > - On the RZ/Five we have additional registers for IRQC block > > > > Indeed, the NMI/IRQ/TINT "Interruput" Mask Control Registers, thus > > warranting separate compatible values. > > > > > - On the RZ/Five we have BUS_ERR_INT which needs to be handled by IRQC > > > > Can you please elaborate? I may have missed something, but to me it > > looks like that is exactly the same on RZ/G2UL and on RZ/Five. > > > Now that we have to update the binding doc with the BUS_ERR_INT too, > do you think it would make sense to add interrupt-names too? > > BUS_ERR_INT will have to be handled IRQC itself (i.e. IRQC will > register a handler for it). > Gentle ping. Cheers, Prabhakar
