Re: [PATCH V2 13/14] dt-bindings: arm-gic: Add documentation for Tegra210 AGIC

[Jon Hunter]

Hi Rob,

On 11/05/16 16:51, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> The "nvidia,tegra210-agic" string can be taken as describing any
>>>> Tegra-210 specific integration quirks, though I agree that's also not
>>>> fantastic for extending PM support beyond Tegra 210 and variants
>>>> thereof.
>>>>
>>>> So maybe the best approach is bailing out in the presence of clocks
>>>> and/or power domains after all, on the assumption that nothing today has
>>>> those properties, though I fear we may have problems with that later
>>>> down the line if/when people describe those for the root GIC to describe
>>>> those must be hogged, even if not explicitly managed.
>>>
>>> On further testing, by bailing out in the presence of clocks and/or
>>> power-domains, the problem I now see is that although the primary gic-400
>>> has been registered, we still try to probe it again later as it matches
>>> the platform driver. One way to avoid this would be ...
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/irq.c b/drivers/of/irq.c
>>> index e7bfc175b8e1..631da7ad0dbf 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/of/irq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/of/irq.c
>>> @@ -556,6 +556,8 @@ void __init of_irq_init(const struct of_device_id *matches)
>>>                          * its children can get processed in a subsequent pass.
>>>                          */
>>>                         list_add_tail(&desc->list, &intc_parent_list);
>>> +
>>> +                       of_node_set_flag(desc->dev, OF_POPULATED);
>>>                 }
>>
>> That sounds like the right thing to do to me...
> 
> Seems fine to me, but it would be a problem since this is a global
> decision if you wanted to have some hand-off from an "early driver" to
> a platform driver. I guess setting the flag could move to drivers that
> need it although I don't think drivers should be touching the flags.

Isn't this the other way around? Setting this flag means that I have
been populated and so don't bother creating a platform device for this
device as it isn't needed. A by-product if this, is that if we did
happen to have a platform driver for the irqchip that also has an early
driver, then the hand-off would never happen if the early init was
successful.

The driver would still have to decide whether to hand-off and to do that
it would need to return an error from the early driver [0].

>>> If this is not appropriate then I guess I will just need to use
>>> "tegra210-agic" for the compatibility flag.
>>
>> As I want this for plain gic-400, I'd be unhappy ;-)
> 
> IMO, the plain gic-400 should not have these dependencies and you
> should use SoC specific compatible strings should you need to deal
> with this problem.

It is fine for my case, but it does mean I cannot say ...

	compatible = "tegra210-agic", "gic-400";

... because this will always match the early driver (unless we do
something like I have suggested above). So I would have ...

	compatible = "tegra210-agic";

Cheers
Jon

[0] http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=146237938725709&w=2