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

[Jon Hunter]

On 11/05/16 17:08, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 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].

I mean, the "early driver would still have to decide whether to hand-off
..."

Jon