Re: [RFC RESEND PATCH 0/2] RZ/G2UL separate out SoC specific parts

[Lad, Prabhakar]

Hi Geert.

Thank you for the review.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 1:42 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> (now replying to the latest version)
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:12 AM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This patch series aims to split up the RZ/G2UL SoC DTSI into common parts
> > so that this can be shared with the RZ/Five SoC.
> >
> > Implementation is based on the discussion [0] where I have used option#2.
> >
> > The Renesas RZ/G2UL (ARM64) and RZ/Five (RISC-V) have almost the same
> > identical blocks to avoid duplication a base SoC dtsi (r9a07g043.dtsi) is
> > created which will be used by the RZ/G2UL (r9a07g043u.dtsi) and RZ/Five
> > (r9a07g043F.dtsi)
>
> Thanks for your series!
>
> > Sending this as an RFC to get some feedback.
> >
> > r9a07g043f.dtsi will look something like below:
> >
> > #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
> >
> > #define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ_NUMBER(nr)   (nr + 32)
> > #define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(nr, na)      SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ_NUMBER(nr) na
>
> Originally, when I assumed incorrectly that dtc does not support
> arithmetic, I used "nr" and "na" in the macro I proposed to mean RISC-V
> ("r") resp. ARM ("a") interrupt number.  Apparently the names stuck,
> although the second parameter now has a completely different meaning ;-)
>
> However, as the NCEPLIC does support interrupt flags, unlike the SiFive
> PLIC, there is no need to have the flags parameter in the macro.
>
> Moreover,  it looks like the SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ_NUMBER()
> intermediate is not needed, so you can just write:
>
>     #define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(nr)  (nr + 32)
>
Agreed, I'll change it as per your suggestion and send a v2.

Cheers,
Prabhakar