(Sorry for the slow reply; I was on vacation)
On 06/18/2015 07:32 AM, Noralf TrÃnnes wrote:
Den 18.06.2015 04:26, skrev Stephen Warren:That assumes the IRQ is "accessed" via the fiq-specific APIs. Since this
On 06/12/2015 11:26 AM, Noralf TrÃnnes wrote:claim_fiq() protects the FIQ. See d) answer below.
Add a duplicate irq range with an offset on the hwirq's so theThis basically looks OK, but a few comments/thoughts:
driver can detect that enable_fiq() is used.
Tested with downstream dwc_otg USB controller driver.
b) Doesn't the driver need to refuse some operation (handler
registration, IRQ setup, IRQ enable, ...?) for more than 1 IRQ in the
FIQ range, since the FIQ control register only allows routing 1 IRQ to
FIQ.
patch changes the IRQ domain from having n IRQs to having 2*n IRQs, and
doesn't do anything special to prevent clients from using IRQs n..2n-1
via the existing IRQ APIs, it's quite possible the a buggy client would.
(From another email):
The intention of the patch may not be to expand the set of IRQsI have seconds thoughts on this:c) The DT binding needs updating to describe the extra IRQs:Ok.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/brcm,bcm28armctrl-ic.txt
This patch does not change the DT bindings so I don't see what update
I should make. This patch only adds support for the Linux way of
handling FIQ's through enable_fiq(). It doesn't change how interrupts
are described in the DT.
available via DT, but it does in practice. I think you need to add a
custom of_xlate for the IRQ domain to ensure that only IRQs 0..n-1 can
be translated from DT, and not IRQs n..2n-1. If you do that, then I
agree that no DT binding update should be required.