Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] irqchip: meson: add support for gpio interrupt controller

[Jerome Brunet]

On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 11:10 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:49:11AM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 17:33 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 19/10/16 16:21, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > +struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data {
> > > > +	void __iomem *base;
> > > > +	int index;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static irq_hw_number_t meson_parent_hwirqs[] = {
> > > > +	64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > If that a guarantee that these numbers will always represent the
> > > parent interrupt?
> > 
> > At the moment, the 3 supported SoC use these parent interrupts, but
> > we
> > have absolutely no idea (or guarantee) that is will remain the
> > same, or
> > even contiguous, in the upcoming SoC (like the GXM or GXL)
> > 
> > I reckon, it is likely that manufacturer will keep on using these
> > parent irqs for a while but I would prefer not make an assumption
> > about
> > it in the driver.
> > 
> > If a SoC get a different set of interrupts I would have added a new
> > table like this and passed it to the appropriate params :
> > 
> > static irq_hw_number_t meson_new_parent_hwirqs[] = {
> > 	143, 144, 150, 151, 152, 173, 178, 179,
> > };
> > 
> > > 
> > > It feels a bit odd not to get that information directly from
> > > the device tree, in the form of a device specific property.
> > > Something
> > > like:
> > > 
> > > 	upstream-interrupts = <64 65 66 ... >;
> > > 
> > 
> > I wondered about putting this information in DT or in the driver
> > for a
> > while. Maybe DT would be a more suitable place holder for these
> > data
> > (parent irq and number of provided hwirq) but I was under the
> > understanding that we should now put these information in the
> > driver
> > and use the compatible property to get the appropriate parameters.
> > 
> > I'd love to get the view of the DT guys on this.
> 
> Please describe inter-device relationships in DT when you are aware
> of
> them. The SoC-specific compatible string is more of a future-proofing
> thing / last restort for things we realise too late.
> 
> To be clear, we should *also* have an soc-specific compatible string,
> but for differences we already know about, we should use DT
> properties.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson8b_params = {
> > > > +	.nhwirqÂÂ= 119,
> > > > +	.sourceÂÂ= meson_parent_hwirqs,
> > > > +	.nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson_gxbb_params =
> > > > {
> > > > +	.nhwirqÂÂ= 133,
> > > > +	.sourceÂÂ= meson_parent_hwirqs,
> > > > +	.nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > Same thing. How big is the variability of these structures? Are
> > > we
> > > going to see more of those? or is that now set into stone?
> > 
> > The number of pad mapped to the controller seems to change with
> > every
> > SoC version. The parent irqs have not changed so far, but as
> > explained
> > above, there is no guarantee it will keep on being this way.
> > 
> > So i'd say probably more of those ...
> > 
> > > 
> > > +Mark: what's the policy to describe this kind of things?
> 
> Generally, I'd prefer that we describe this in DT rather than
> accumulating a set of string -> number mappings in the driver.

Thx Marc. I will change it.

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.