* Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> [130813 06:35]: > On Tuesday 13 August 2013 04:10 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> [130724 12:06]: > >> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 02:51 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>> On 07/24/2013 01:43 PM, Sricharan R wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 10:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>>>> On 07/24/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 12:08 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>>>>>> That said, maybe a intermediate pinctrl approach might be more pragmatic and less theoretically flexible. > >>>>>>> an option might be to "statically allocate" default number of interrupts to a domain - example: > >>>>>>> * GIC IRQ 72->78 allotted to UARTs > >>>>>>> * pinctrl mapping provided for those but only 6 can be used (rest are marked status="disabled" as default) at any given time (choice of pinctrl option determines GIC interrupt line to use) > >>>>>>> * All modules will have a pinctrl definition to have a mapping - to avoid bootloader overriding default cross bar setting in ways un-expected by kernel. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Does that sound fair trade off? > >>>>>> This sounds better. That way we can get all the devices in the DT at least. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fair enough - if Linus and Tony are still ok with this approach to the problem, seeing a patch series with the effect would be beneficial. > >>>>> > >>>> Ok, i will use this idea of certain number interrupts to groups. > >>>> Yes on DRA7XX, we have about 160 gic lines and 320 irq crossbar device inputs contending for it. > >>>> 1:2 and fully arbitrary. But will we be really exhausting them ? > >>>> > >>> Depends on how we allocate :). The default arbitary allocation can be made more logical in your series ofcourse :). > >>> > >> I would just most logical peripherals rather than providing every single > >> IP connected to cross bar. Otherwise we will end up wth hwmod like > >> scenario where now started removing the unused stuff because of > >> maintenance and loc issues ;-) > > > > Sorry for the delay on this, I think the best way to set this up > > is as a separate drivers/irqchip controller. Then just map the > > configured interrupts for the board with interrupt-map and > > interrupt-map-mask binding. No need to stuff all the SoC specific > > maps to the .dts, just the ones used for the board. > > > Interrupt mask/unmask, really ? Thats like abusing those irqchip > hooks completely. Your point is to just setup events which we need > and thats what I also suggested. But the use of irqchip hooks is > certainly not the right idea since they are for masking/unmasking > interrupts in running system and not for joining the interrupt > line which needs to happen once during probe. Well if it's an interrupt controller. Doing a chained IRQ pinctrl driver might work too. But yes, the idea with interrupt-map was to only map what's used rather than have data for each SoC. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
