On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:52:27PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 4/5/24 12:19, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > On 4/4/24 16:15, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > I would expect each parent interrupt to show up as a separate remap_irq. > > > > So if we arrange to supply a name when we register multiple domains > > > > things should work fine? > > After my latest findings, yes, I think so. How to do this correctly is > > beyond me though. The __irq_domain_create() seems to me that the name is > > meant to be the dt-node name when the controller is backed by a real > > dt-node. Naming of the irq_domain_alloc_named_fwnode() sounds to me like ... > If we wanted to support multiple HWIRQs / regmap-IRQ controller, it would > require us to duplicate almost everything in the struct regmap_irq_chip for > every new parent IRQ. The status/mask register information, IRQ type, etc. > Naturally, it would require also duplicating lot of the data contained in > the struct regmap_irq_chip_data. I am not sure if this could be done so the > change is not reflected in the existing IRQ data initialization macros etc. > Furthermore, some API changes would be required like changes to > regmap_irq_get_domain(). I don't understand what the difficulty is here - we're creating multiple interrupt controllers so I'd expect to have to have full definitions of each, and since everything is referenced by name from the root regmap_irq_chip which gets registered it's just a case of supplying different names and all the helpers should be fine? > Thus, forcing the regmap-IRQ to support multiple parents instead of having > own regmap-IRQ instance / parent IRQ feels like fitting square item to a > round hole. I am sure fixing all the bugs I caused would give donate a lot > of EXP-points though :rolleyes: Right, my suggestion is to register multiple regmap_irq instrances - one per parent - and supply a name that allows all the display/debugfs stuff that currently uses the dev_name() to deduplicate. You'd end up sticking -primary, -secondary or whatever name was supplied onto the names we currently use. > Another option I see, is trying to think if irq-domain name could be > changed. (This is what the RFC v3 does, [ab]using the > irq_domain_update_bus_token()). I was a bit put off by the idea of > 'instantiating' multiple domains (or regmap-IRQ controllers) from a single > node, but more I think of this, more I lean towards it. Besides, this is not Yes, register mutliple controllers with different names.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
