Hi Geert,
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 8:34 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 7:36 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:38 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:16 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The IX45 block has additional mask registers (NMSK/IMSK/TMSK) as compared
> > > > to the RZ/G2L (family) SoC.
> > > >
> > > > Introduce masking/unmasking support for IRQ and TINT interrupts in IRQC
> > > > controller driver. Two new registers, IMSK and TMSK, are defined to
> > > > handle masking on RZ/Five SoC. The implementation utilizes a new data
> > > > structure, `struct rzg2l_irqc_data`, to determine mask support for a
> > > > specific controller instance.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> > > > @@ -66,15 +68,25 @@ struct rzg2l_irqc_reg_cache {
> > > > u32 titsr[2];
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * struct rzg2l_irqc_data - OF data structure
> > > > + * @mask_supported: Indicates if mask registers are available
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct rzg2l_irqc_data {
> > >
> > > This structure has the same name as the single static struct
> > > rzg2l_irqc_priv instance, which is confusing.
> > >
> > Agreed, I will rename it to rzg2l_irqc_of_data
> >
> > > > + bool mask_supported;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > /**
> > > > * struct rzg2l_irqc_priv - IRQ controller private data structure
> > > > * @base: Controller's base address
> > > > + * @data: OF data pointer
> > > > * @fwspec: IRQ firmware specific data
> > > > * @lock: Lock to serialize access to hardware registers
> > > > * @cache: Registers cache for suspend/resume
> > > > */
> > > > static struct rzg2l_irqc_priv {
> > > > void __iomem *base;
> > > > + const struct rzg2l_irqc_data *data;
> > >
> > > Replacing this by a bool would avoid a pointer dereference in each user,
> > > and allows you to make rzg2l_irqc_data etc. __initconst.
> > >
> > Do you mean just add "bool mask_supported" here and get rid of struct
> > rzg2l_irqc_data ? Can you please elaborate here..
>
> Either add "bool mask_supported" here, or add a copy of the full
> struct rzg2l_irqc_data (see below).
>
OK, i'll keep a copy of struct rzg2l_irqc_data here...
> >
> > > > struct irq_fwspec fwspec[IRQC_NUM_IRQ];
> > > > raw_spinlock_t lock;
> > > > struct rzg2l_irqc_reg_cache cache;
> > >
> > > > @@ -371,9 +475,23 @@ static int rzg2l_irqc_parse_interrupts(struct rzg2l_irqc_priv *priv,
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static const struct rzg2l_irqc_data rzfive_irqc_data = {
> > > > + .mask_supported = true,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static const struct rzg2l_irqc_data rzg2l_irqc_default_data = {
> > > > + .mask_supported = false,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static const struct of_device_id rzg2l_irqc_matches[] = {
> > > > + { .compatible = "renesas,r9a07g043f-irqc", .data = &rzfive_irqc_data },
> > > > + { }
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > static int rzg2l_irqc_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
> > > > {
> > > > struct irq_domain *irq_domain, *parent_domain;
> > > > + const struct of_device_id *match;
> > > > struct platform_device *pdev;
> > > > struct reset_control *resetn;
> > > > int ret;
> > > > @@ -392,6 +510,12 @@ static int rzg2l_irqc_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
> > > > if (!rzg2l_irqc_data)
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > > + match = of_match_node(rzg2l_irqc_matches, node);
> > > > + if (match)
> > > > + rzg2l_irqc_data->data = match->data;
> > > > + else
> > > > + rzg2l_irqc_data->data = &rzg2l_irqc_default_data;
> > >
> > > Instead of matching a second time, I'd rather add a second
> > > IRQCHIP_MATCH() entry with a different init function, passing the
> > > actual rzg2l_irqc_data pointer.
> > >
> > OK, or rather just pass true/false instead of rzg2l_irqc_of_data pointer.?
>
> Yes, that would be fine for me, too.
> It all depends on whether you plan to add, or see a need for adding,
> more flags or other fields in the future (and even for flags, you could
> combine them in an unsigned long).
>
I'll keep the bool flag for now and update it as and when it grows.
I see future SoCs with a lot of other interrupts being supported by
this block.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
