On 15/02/16 18:53, Dirk Behme wrote:
> On 15.02.2016 11:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 15/02/16 10:35, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 15/02/16 08:16, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:34:39PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> + gic: interrupt-controller@0xf1010000 {
>>>>>>>>>> + compatible = "arm,gic-400";
>>>>>>>>>> + #interrupt-cells = <3>;
>>>>>>>>>> + #address-cells = <0>;
>>>>>>>>>> + interrupt-controller;
>>>>>>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0xf1010000 0 0x1000>,
>>>>>>>>>> + <0x0 0xf1020000 0 0x2000>;
>>>>>>>>>> + interrupts = <GIC_PPI 9
>>>>>>>>>> + (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(1) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)>;
>>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No GICH and GICV?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These seem to be defined in the "arm,gic-v3" DT bindings only, while this is
>>>>>>>> an "arm,gic-400" (GICD_IIDR 0x0200043b)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See the "GIC virtualization extensions (VGIC)" section in
>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DDI0471B_gic400_r0p1_trm.pdf says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Address range GIC-400 functional block
>>>>>> A. 0x0000 - 0x0FFF Reserved
>>>>>> B. 0x1000 - 0x1FFF Distributor
>>>>>> C. 0x2000 - 0x3FFF CPU interfaces
>>>>>> D. 0x4000 - 0x4FFF Virtual interface control block, for the processor that
>>>>>> is performing the access
>>>>>> E. 0x5000 - 0x5FFF Virtual interface control block, for the processor
>>>>>> selected by address bits [11:9]
>>>>>> F. 0x6000 - 0x7FFF Virtual CPU interfaces
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DT binding document says:
>>>>>> 1. The first region is the GIC distributor register base and size.
>>>>>> 2. The 2nd region is the GIC cpu interface register base and size.
>>>>>> 3. The first additional region is the GIC virtual interface control register
>>>>>> base and size.
>>>>>> 4. The 2nd additional region is the GIC virtual cpu interface register base
>>>>>> and size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matching with the example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> interrupt-controller@2c001000 {
>>>>>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic";
>>>>>> #interrupt-cells = <3>;
>>>>>> interrupt-controller;
>>>>>> reg = <0x2c001000 0x1000>,
>>>>>> <0x2c002000 0x1000>,
>>>>>> <0x2c004000 0x2000>,
>>>>>> <0x2c006000 0x2000>;
>>>>>> interrupts = <1 9 0xf04>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means:
>>>>>> - reg entry 1. covers address range B,
>>>>>> - reg entry 2. covers address range C,
>>>>>> - reg entry 3. covers address ranges D _and_ E,
>>>>>> - reg entry 4. covers address range F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On R-Car Gen3, the base addresses are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Distributor : 0xF101_0000
>>>>>> CPU interfaces : 0xF102_0000
>>>>>> Virtual interfaces : 0xF104_0000
>>>>>> Virtual interfaces : 0xF105_0000
>>>>>> Virtual CPU interfaces : 0xF106_0000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the additional multiplication factor of 16 in the offsets relative to
>>>>>> the base address 0xf1000000 (e.g. 0x50000 instead of 0x5000).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As address ranges D and E are merged in a single reg entry, how is the GIC
>>>>>> driver supposed to know about this multiplication factor?
>>>>
>>>> The answer is very simple, the GIC driver doesn't give a damn about the
>>>> second part of the GICH region, because it is absolutely unusable for
>>>> any realistic use-case. Only the banked version of GICH is of any
>>>> relevance (the first 512 bytes, in essence).
>>>>
>>>> Aligning the GIC regions on 64kB boundaries is documented in the SBSA
>>>> specification, independently of the GIC400 documentation.
>>>
>>> If I understand the SBSA spec correctly (BTW, arm,gic.txt doesn't use the
>>> "GICC" terminology, unlike arm,gic-v3.txt), that means reg entry 3 should be
>>> "<0xf104f000 0x2000>", so it covers the aliased last 4 KiB of address range D,
>>> and the first 4 KiB of address range E. I.e.
>>>
>>> reg = <0x0 0xf1010000 0 0x1000>,
>>> <0x0 0xf1020000 0 0x2000>,
>>> <0x0 0xf104f000 0 0x2000>,
>>> <0x0 0xf1060000 0 0x2000>;
>>>
>>> Is that correct?
>>
>> My preference would be to expose the full 128kB of the region
>
>
> That would be
>
> <0x0 0xf1040000 0 0x20000>
>
> then? Ok?
Exactly.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
