On 02/09/15 11:48, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 09/02/2015 10:55 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 02/09/15 10:33, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2015 03:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>>>> Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I wasn't looking for a quick and
>>>>> dirty solution but my view of the problem is much simpler than yours so my
>>>>> idea of a solution would look quick and dirty. I have a better appreciation of
>>>>> the problem now and a way to approach it :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> From DT point of view are we OK with this form then
>>>>>
>>>>> coprocessor {
>>>>> interrupt-source = <&intc INT_SPEC COP_HWAFFINITY>;
>>>>> interrupt-sink = <&intc INT_SPEC CPU_HWAFFINITY>;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> and if the root controller sends normal IPI as it sends normal device
>>>>> interrupts then interrupt-sink can be a standard interrupts property (like in
>>>>> my case)
>>>>>
>>>>> coprocessor {
>>>>> interrupt-source = <&intc INT_SPEC COP_HWAFFINITY>;
>>>>> interrupts = <INT_SPEC>;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this look right to you? Is there something else that needs to be covered
>>>>> still?
>>>> I'm not an DT wizard. I leave that to the DT experts.
>>>>
>>> Hi Marc Zyngier, Mark Rutland,
>>>
>>> Any comments about the DT binding for the IPIs?
>>>
>>> To recap, the proposal which is based on Marc Zyngier's is to use
>>> interrupt-source to represent an IPI from Linux CPU to a coprocessor and
>>> interrupt-sink to receive an IPI from coprocessor to Linux CPU.
>>> Hopefully the description above is self explanatory. Please let me know
>>> if you need more info. Thomas covered the routing, synthesising, and
>>> requesting parts in the core code. The remaining (high level) issue is
>>> how to describe the IPIs in DT.
>> I'm definitely *not* a DT expert! ;-) My initial binding proposal was
>> only for wired interrupts, not for IPIs. There is definitely some common
>> aspects, except for one part:
>>
>> Who decides on the IPI number? So far, we've avoided encoding IPI
>> numbers in the DT just like we don't encode MSIs, because they are
>> programmable things. My feeling is that we shouldn't put the IPI number
>> in the DT because the rest of the kernel uses them as well and could
>> decide to use this particular IPI number for its own use: *clash*.
>
> I think this is covered in Thomas proposal to reserve IPIs. His thoughts
> is to use a separate irq-domain for IPIs and use irq_reserve_ipi() and
> irq_destroy_ipi() to get and release IPIs.
>
>>
>> The way I see it would be to have a pool of IPI numbers that the kernel
>> requests for its own use first, leaving whatever remains to drivers.
>
> That's what Thomas thinks too and he covered this by using
> irq_reserve_ipi() and irq_destroy_ipi().
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/713
Ah, I missed that, sorry for the noise. This looks very sensible.
> It's worth noting in the light of this that INT_SPEC should be optional
> since for hardware similar to mine there's not much to tell the
> controller if it's all dynamic except where we want the IPI to be routed
> to - the INT_SPEC is implicitly defined by the notion it's an IPI.
Well, I'd think that the INT_SPEC should say that it is an IPI, and I
don't believe we should omit it. On the ARM GIC side, our interrupts are
typed (type 0 is a normal wired interrupt, type 1 a per-cpu interrupt,
and we could allocate type 2 to identify an IPI).
But we do need to identify it properly, as we should be able to cover
both IPIs and normal wired interrupts.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
