Re: [PATCH] of/irq: Add a quirk for controllers with their own definition of interrupt-map

[Marc Zyngier]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 00:42:49 +0000,
Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: 23 November 2021 09:11
> > To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx; Rob Herring
> > <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; John Crispin <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Biwen Li <biwen.li@xxxxxxx>; Chris Brandt
> > <Chris.Brandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Prabhakar Mahadev Lad
> > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] of/irq: Add a quirk for controllers with their own definition of interrupt-map
> > 
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 08:44:19 +0000,
> > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marc,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:33 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 07:57:48 +0000,
> > > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Summarized:
> > > > >   - Before the bad commit, and after your fix, irqc-rza1 is invoked,
> > > > >     and the number of interrupts seen is correct, but input events
> > > > >     are doubled.
> > > > >   - After the bad commit, irqc-rza1 is not invoked, and there is an
> > > > >     interrupt storm, but input events are OK.
> > > >
> > > > OK, that's reassuring, even if the "twice the events" stuff isn't
> > > > what you'd expect. We at least know this is a separate issue, and
> > > > that this patch on top of -rc1 brings you back to the 5.15 behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > I'd expect it to be the case for the other platforms as well.
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > BTW, what would have been the correct way to do this for irqc-rza1?
> > > I think we're about to make the same mistake with RZ/G2L IRQC
> > > support[1]?
> > 
> > Indeed, and I was about to look into it.
> > 
> > There are multiple ways to skin this cat, including renaming 'interrupt-map' to 'my-own-private-
> > interrupt-map'. Or use something akin the new 'msi-range' (which we could call interrupt-range), and
> > replace:
> > 
> >   interrupt-map = <0 0 &gic GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >                   <1 0 &gic GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >                   <2 0 &gic GIC_SPI 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >                   <3 0 &gic GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >                   <4 0 &gic GIC_SPI 8 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >                   <5 0 &gic GIC_SPI 9 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >                   <6 0 &gic GIC_SPI 10 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> >                   <7 0 &gic GIC_SPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > 
> > with:
> > 
> >   interrupt-range = <&gic GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0 8>;
> > 
> Just to clarify, do you suggest to add interrupt-range as a generic
> DT property or SoC/company specific property?

As a generic one. I have no interest in SoC-specific stuff (though you
are free to invent your own and run it by Rob).

> If you meant to add generic property where would you suggest to
> document this property?

Ideally collocated with the rest of the interrupt properties.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.