Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] irqchip: irq-ti-sci-inta: Add direct mapped interrupts

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2023-04-08 12:27, Raghavendra, Vignesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/8/2023 4:10 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > +static unsigned int ti_sci_inta_direct_events_am62x[] = {
> > > +	/* CPSW etherenti DMA events */
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4627),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4635),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4643),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4651),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4659),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4667),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4675),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 4683),
> > > +	TO_HWIRQ(DEV_DMASS0_PKTDMA_0, 5651),
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static struct ti_sci_inta_soc_data soc_data_am62x = {
> > > +	.events_list = ti_sci_inta_direct_events_am62x,
> > > +	.events_list_size = ARRAY_SIZE(ti_sci_inta_direct_events_am62x),
> > > +};
> > I don't think these tables belong in a driver, and they are bound to
> > grow without any obvious limits.
>
> Fair point.
>
> > You have firmware tables that can express these things. Surely they 
> > can be put to a good use.
>
> By firmware tables you mean device tree?

That, or any other machine-specific mean. From what I get of these
systems, they already make heavy use of some runtime firmware to get
things configured. That side could also provide setup information.

I don't mind either way, as long as we don't end-up with forever
growing in-kernel tables that are just board files in disguise.

          M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...