On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 9:48:36 PM CET Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> + interrupt-map-mask = <0xff00 0 0 7>;
>>> + interrupt-map = <0x4800 0 0 1 &pci_intc 0>, /* Slot 9 */
>>> + <0x4900 0 0 2 &pci_intc 1>,
>>> + <0x4a00 0 0 3 &pci_intc 2>,
>>> + <0x4b00 0 0 4 &pci_intc 3>,
>>> + <0x5000 0 0 1 &pci_intc 0>, /* Slot 10 */
>>> + <0x5100 0 0 2 &pci_intc 1>,
>>> + <0x5200 0 0 3 &pci_intc 2>,
>>> + <0x5300 0 0 4 &pci_intc 3>,
>>> + <0x5800 0 0 1 &pci_intc 0>, /* Slot 11 */
>>> + <0x5900 0 0 2 &pci_intc 1>,
>>> + <0x5a00 0 0 3 &pci_intc 2>,
>>> + <0x5b00 0 0 4 &pci_intc 3>,
>>> + <0x6000 0 0 1 &pci_intc 0>, /* Slot 12 */
>>> + <0x6100 0 0 2 &pci_intc 1>,
>>> + <0x6200 0 0 3 &pci_intc 2>,
>>> + <0x6300 0 0 4 &pci_intc 3>;
>>>
>>
>> For this particular board, the interrupt lines appear to have been badly
>> configured so all slots use the same interrupt 0 for IntA. IIRC This also
>> means you can probably use <0 0 0 7> as the mask and just specify each of
>> the four interrupts once. A properly wired board would swizzle the
>> interrupts so that each slot has a different IRQ for its IntA line.
>
> They are swizzled, I just have very bad hardware docs. (Only
> code.) It turns out when I'm browsing through old board support
> code that there is a comment followed by a piece of code like this:
>
> /*
> * No swizzle on SL2312
> */
> static u8 __init sl2312_pci_swizzle(struct pci_dev *dev, u8 *pinp)
> {
> return PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn);
> }
>
> /*
> * map the specified device/slot/pin to an IRQ. This works out such
> * that slot 9 pin 1 is INT0, pin 2 is INT1, and slot 10 pin 1 is INT1.
> */
> static int __init sl2312_pci_map_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, u8 slot, u8 pin)
> {
> int intnr = ((slot + (pin - 1)) & 3) + 4; /* the IRQ number
> of PCI bridge */
>
> printk("%s : slot = %d pin = %d \n",__func__,slot,pin);
> switch (slot)
> {
> case 12:
> if (pin==1)
> {
> intnr = 3;
> }
> else
> {
> intnr = 0;
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_DUAL_PCI
> return IRQ_PCI_INTD;
> #endif
> break;
> case 11:
> intnr = (2 + (pin - 1)) & 3;
> #ifdef CONFIG_DUAL_PCI
> return IRQ_PCI_INTC;
> #endif
> break;
> case 10:
> intnr = (1 + (pin - 1)) & 3;
> #ifdef CONFIG_DUAL_PCI
> return IRQ_PCI_INTB;
> #endif
> break;
> case 9:
> intnr = (pin - 1) & 3;
> break;
> }
> // if (slot == 10)
> // intnr = (1 + (pin - 1)) & 3;
> // else if (slot == 9)
> // intnr = (pin - 1) & 3;
> return (IRQ_PCI_INTA + intnr);
> }
>
> If I understand correctly they say that the IRQs are not swizzled
> on the PCI bridge side but on the IRQ handler side.
That depends on whether CONFIG_DUAL_PCI is set or not:
It seems that slot 12 is hardwired to have hwirq 3 on IntA and
hwirq 0 on all others by default, but have hwirq on IntA through
IntD on boards that use CONFIG_DUAL_PCI.
Slot 10/11 use the default swizzling without CONFIG_DUAL_PCI but
uses hwirq 1 or 2 for all four pins with CONFIG_DUAL_PCI.
Slot 9 seems to always use the default swizzling, so it has all
four IRQ pins connected to the four hwirqs of the SoC.
This is still an awful wiring, but not unthinkable, as board
designers may have had a specific usage for the four interrupts
in mind, to spread the devices that are actually present across
the available hwirqs.
> So if I put it in the device tree like so:
>
> + interrupt-map =
> + <0x4800 0 0 1 &pci_intc 0>, /* Slot 9 */
> + <0x4800 0 0 2 &pci_intc 1>,
> + <0x4800 0 0 3 &pci_intc 2>,
> + <0x4800 0 0 4 &pci_intc 3>,
> + <0x5000 0 0 1 &pci_intc 1>, /* Slot 10 */
> + <0x5000 0 0 2 &pci_intc 2>,
> + <0x5000 0 0 3 &pci_intc 3>,
> + <0x5000 0 0 4 &pci_intc 0>,
> + <0x5800 0 0 1 &pci_intc 2>, /* Slot 11 */
> + <0x5800 0 0 2 &pci_intc 3>,
> + <0x5800 0 0 3 &pci_intc 0>,
> + <0x5800 0 0 4 &pci_intc 1>,
For boards that require CONFIG_DUAL_PCI, this would be
<0x5000 0 0 1 &pci_intc 1>, /* Slot 10 */
<0x5000 0 0 2 &pci_intc 1>,
<0x5000 0 0 3 &pci_intc 1>,
<0x5000 0 0 4 &pci_intc 1>,
<0x5800 0 0 1 &pci_intc 2>, /* Slot 11 */
<0x5800 0 0 2 &pci_intc 2>,
<0x5800 0 0 3 &pci_intc 2>,
<0x5800 0 0 4 &pci_intc 2>,
It probably works either way if you put just one device in there,
as almost everything uses just IntA, but you'd notice the difference
if there is ever a PCI bridge behind that slot.
> + <0x6000 0 0 1 &pci_intc 3>, /* Slot 12 */
> + <0x6000 0 0 2 &pci_intc 0>,
> + <0x6000 0 0 3 &pci_intc 1>,
> + <0x6000 0 0 4 &pci_intc 2>;
The last two have to be
<0x6000 0 0 3 &pci_intc 0>, /* [sic] */
<0x6000 0 0 4 &pci_intc 0>; /* [sic] */
> So the IRQs on the right side are swizzled instead
> of the pins being swizzled.
>
> ...but that looks a bit insane.
>
> Isn't that exactly the same thing just exposed in some
> inverse way?
I don't understand your question. The mapping that you list
is the default swizzling, right? I think if you have a board with
sane wiring, you could write that as
interrupt-map-mask = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x7>;
interrupt-map =
<0x0 0x0 0x0 0x1 &pci_intc 0>, /* int A */
<0x0 0x0 0x0 0x2 &pci_intc 1>, /* int B */
<0x0 0x0 0x0 0x3 &pci_intc 2>, /* int C */
<0x0 0x0 0x0 0x4 &pci_intc 3>; /* int D */
meaning that the IRQs are wired correctly to the root bus, and
all slots are connected one would normally do with the standard
swizzling.
Arnd
