On 08/24/2013 10:31 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Saturday 24 of August 2013 10:25:26 Rob Herring wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >>> On Friday 23 of August 2013 16:11:18 Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 08/22/2013 05:22 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> This patch extends vic_of_init to parse valid interrupt sources >>>>> and resume sources masks from device tree. >>>>> >>>>> If mask values are not specified in device tree, all sources >>>>> are assumed to be valid, as before this patch. >>>> >>>> Can you explain further why the VIC needs this information up-front? >>>> Presumably it can accumulate it as devices request interrupts. >>> >>> It does not need this information just for operation, but this makes >>> the hardware description more detailed and allows better sanity >>> checking of interrupts being requested. >>> >>> To clarify, this is a mask of valid interrupt sources of the VIC, >>> where >>> set bit indicates that given signal is wired and clear bit that it is >>> not. >> I agree with Stephen here. The valid interrupts are the ones in the >> DT. The reserved ones are the ones not present. If it is not needed >> for the operation of the VIC, then remove it. The argument of sanity >> checking could apply to all interrupt controllers. > > Sorry, but I don't get what's wrong in having a more detailed description > than required just for operation of the hardware. > > The feature of sanity checks based on interrupt_mask (here now called > valid-mask) has been present in the VIC driver since a long time already > (if not from the beginning of existence of this driver) and before we > started using DT, the mask was being passed from platform code as VIC init > function argument. So we should base the binding on the Linux software design? > I'd prefer this feature to be available when using DT as well, unless we > really want to move things backwards, just because we want to use DT... As I mentioned all these arguments apply to ALL interrupt controllers except ones which a mask does not work. So IF this makes sense, then this should be a generic property and generic code to support. You simply have the same information twice. One is distributed and one is centralized. While it adds a way to validate things it also adds a way to introduce errors. Suppose someone writes a dts such that valid-mask matches the irq lines present in that dts (simply because they were lazy or don't have documentation of all interrupt lines). Then you go add a node with a new interrupt (because the initial dts was not complete). Updating the valid-mask could very easily be forgotten. Yes, this should all be found by testing, but people don't always have access to all the h/w. This issue would also not likely be obvious in a review. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |