Hi Geert,
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:06 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:59 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:13 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 6:30 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:16:14PM +0000, Prabhakar wrote:
> > > > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Document RZ/Five (R9A07G043F) IRQC bindings. The IRQC block on RZ/Five SoC
> > > > > is almost identical to one found on the RZ/G2L SoC with below differences,
> > > > > * Additional BUS error interrupt
> > > > > * Additional ECCRAM error interrupt
> > > > > * Has additional mask control registers for NMI/IRQ/TINT
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence new compatible string "renesas,r9a07g043f-irqc" is added for RZ/Five
> > > > > SoC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/renesas,rzg2l-irqc.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/renesas,rzg2l-irqc.yaml
> > > > > @@ -134,6 +141,12 @@ properties:
> > > > > - const: tint30
> > > > > - const: tint31
> > > > > - const: bus-err
> > > > > + - const: eccram0-tie1
> > > > > + - const: eccram0-tie2
> > > > > + - const: eccram0-ovf
> > > > > + - const: eccram1-tie1
> > > > > + - const: eccram1-tie2
> > > > > + - const: eccram1-ovf
> > >
> > > Why not use the naming from the docs (all 6 include "ti")?
> > > EC7TIE1_0, EC7TIE2_0, EC7TIOVF_0, EC7TIE1_1, EC7TIE2_1, EC7TIOVF_1
> > > => ec7tie1-0, ec7tie2-0, ec7tiovf-0, ...?
> > >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > > I think the restrictions already in the file become incorrect with this
> > > > patch:
> > > > - if:
> > > > properties:
> > > > compatible:
> > > > contains:
> > > > enum:
> > > > - renesas,r9a07g043u-irqc
> > > > - renesas,r9a08g045-irqc
> > > > then:
> > > > properties:
> > > > interrupts:
> > > > minItems: 42
> > > > interrupt-names:
> > > > minItems: 42
> > > > required:
> > > > - interrupt-names
> > > >
> > > > This used to require all 42 interrupts for the two compatibles here
> > > > and at least the first 41 otherwise. Now you've increased the number of
> > > > interrupts to 48 thereby removing the upper limits on the existing
> > > > devices.
> > >
> > > I'm gonna repeat (and extend) my question from [1]: How come we thought
> > > RZ/G2L and RZ/V2L do not have the bus error and ECCRAM interrupts?
> > >
> > Hmm not sure how this was missed earlier.
> >
> > > Looks like most of the conditional handling can be removed (see below).
> > >
> > > > Given the commit message, I figure that providing 48 interrupts for
> > > > (at least some of) those devices would be incorrect?
> > >
> > > Looks like all of RZ/G2L{,C}, RZ/V2L, RZ/G2UL, and RZ/Five support
> > > all 48 interrupts. RZ/G3S lacks the final three for ECCRAM1.
> > >
> > Agreed for RZ/G2L{,C}, RZ/V2L, RZ/G2UL, and RZ/Five, but for RZ/G3S it
> > becomes tricky the interrupts for ECCRAM0/1 are combined hence they
> > have just 3 interrupts. How do you propose the above interrupt naming?
>
> I guess it doesn't hurt to have an index 0 on a part that has only a
> single set?
>
Let's go with this option...
> Alternatives would be to
> 1. Drop the index completely on RZ/G3S, complicating bindings and
> driver,
> 1. Drop the index for the first set, and use index 2 for the second set,
> causing the names to differ even more on parts with 2 sets.
>
...instead of complicating.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
