On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:36 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:37 AM Lad, Prabhakar
> <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marc/Rob,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:37 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:52:21 +0000,
> > > "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:33 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > interrupts would work just fine here:
> > > > >
> > > > > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > <GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > <GIC_SPI 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > <GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > <GIC_SPI 8 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > <GIC_SPI 9 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > <GIC_SPI 10 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > > > > <GIC_SPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > > > >
> > > > > We don't need a different solution for N:1 interrupts from N:M. Sure,
> > > > > that could become unweldy if there are a lot of interrupts (just like
> > > > > interrupt-map), but is that an immediate problem?
> > > > >
> > > > It's just that with this approach the driver will have to index the
> > > > interrupts instead of reading from DT.
> > > >
> > > > Marc - is it OK with the above approach?
> > >
> > > Anything that uses standard properties in a standard way works for me.
> > >
> > I added interrupts property now instead of interrupt-map as below:
> >
> > irqc: interrupt-controller@110a0000 {
> > compatible = "renesas,r9a07g044-irqc", "renesas,rzg2l-irqc";
> > #address-cells = <0>;
> > interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
> > interrupt-controller;
> > reg = <0 0x110a0000 0 0x10000>;
> > interrupts =
> > <GIC_SPI 0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 1 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 2 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 8 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 444 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 445 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 446 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 447 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 448 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 449 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 450 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 451 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 452 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 453 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 454 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 455 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 456 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 457 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 458 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 459 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 460 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 461 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 462 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 463 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 464 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 465 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 466 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 467 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 468 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 469 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 470 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 471 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 472 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 473 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 474 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> > <GIC_SPI 475 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD R9A07G044_IA55_CLK>,
> > <&cpg CPG_MOD R9A07G044_IA55_PCLK>;
> > clock-names = "clk", "pclk";
> > power-domains = <&cpg>;
> > resets = <&cpg R9A07G044_IA55_RESETN>;
> > };
> >
> >
> > In the hierarchal interrupt code its parsed as below:
> > on probe fetch the details:
> > range = of_get_property(np, "interrupts", &len);
> > if (!range)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > for (len /= sizeof(*range), j = 0; len >= 3; len -= 3) {
> > if (j >= IRQC_NUM_IRQ)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > priv->map[j].args[0] = be32_to_cpu(*range++);
> > priv->map[j].args[1] = be32_to_cpu(*range++);
> > priv->map[j].args[2] = be32_to_cpu(*range++);
> > priv->map[j].args_count = 3;
> > j++;
>
> Not sure what's wrong, but you shouldn't be doing your own parsing.
> The setup shouldn't look much different than a GPIO controller
> interrupts except you have multiple parent interrupts.
>
Sorry does that mean the IRQ domain should be chained handler and not
hierarchical? Or is it I have miss-understood.
If the IRQ domain has to be hierarchical how do we map to the parent?
(based on the previous reviews Marc had suggested to implement as
hierarchical [1])
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211110225808.16388-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
Cheers,
Prabhakar
