Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: sdm845-pinctrl: add wakeup interrupt parent for GPIO

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Stephen Boyd (2019-01-11 15:20:48)
> Quoting Rob Herring (2019-01-09 11:36:56)
> > 
> > > >However, my main concern is documenting something genericish in a
> > > >device specific binding. It looks like Tegra is trying to add the same
> > > >thing, so this needs to be documented in a common place. One question
> > > >is whether wakeup is the only use or if this should be more generally
> > > >a secondary interrupt parent?
> > > >
> > > Yes, wakeup is the only use of this interrupt parent.
> > 
> > Maybe for you, but I was wondering about this more generally. Should
> > we encode what the function (e.g. wakeup) is in the property name or
> > have something like aux-interrupt-controller? Maybe some platforms
> > have some need for a secondary interrupt-controller which is not
> > wakeup. Routing interrupts to other cores perhaps?
> > 
> 
> I'd say it's not the interrupt-parent, but a secondary-interrupt-parent,
> because it's another path that some GPIO interrupts will go through vs.
> the "normal" summary irq line that uses the interrupt-parent. Maybe
> that's similar to the interrupt partitioning that ARM is doing for PPIs
> that only go to some CPUs?
> 
> We don't really specify that some GPIO is corresponding to the secondary
> or primary interrupt controller for the GPIO controller in DT. If we
> did, then we could do something like the interrupt-map binding and have
> the index of that property be the gpio number and the interrupt parent
> that it maps to (either summary from the GIC or MPM pin number).
> 
>  interrupt-map = <0 0 &gic GIC_SPI 208 0>,
>                  <1 0 &pdc 3 0>;
>  interrupt-map-mask = <0xfffffff 0>;
> 
> And then we would pass the 2-cell GPIO interrupt specifier (gpio# and
> flags) through the table and remap it to arbitrary domain parents. We
> could use this same design for the SSBI and SPMI gpio interrupt
> controller where we're currently looking at hardcoding the base
> interrupt number in the driver (0xc0) and then adding the GPIO number to
> that to get the parent interrupt specifier.
> 
> It's sort of an abuse of interrupt-map, but I don't know if it really
> matters because there isn't a child of the gpio controller that is going
> to go through this table.
> 

Rob, can you please respond?