Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] misc: rp1: RaspberryPi RP1 misc driver

[Andrea della Porta]

Hi Herve,

On 15:50 Thu 09 Jan     , Herve Codina wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:13:42 +0100
> Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Rob,
> > 
> > On 15:08 Mon 16 Dec     , Andrea della Porta wrote:
> > > Hi Rob,
> > > 
> > > On 16:48 Tue 10 Dec     , Rob Herring wrote:  
> > > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 12:19:32PM +0100, Andrea della Porta wrote:  
> > > > > The RaspberryPi RP1 is a PCI multi function device containing
> > > > > peripherals ranging from Ethernet to USB controller, I2C, SPI
> > > > > and others.  
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_ADC_FIFO	52
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_PCIE_OUT	53
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_SPI6		54
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_SPI7		55
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_SPI8		56
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_SYSCFG		58
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_CLOCKS_DEFAULT	59
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_VBUSCTRL	60
> > > > > +#define RP1_INT_PROC_MISC	57  
> > > > 
> > > > Why all these defines which will never be used because they come from 
> > > > DT?
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > Right, those defines where originally designed to be included from dts, but
> > > previous discussion deemed interrupt numbers to be hardcoded instead of being
> > > specified as mnemonics. In the driver source code I just use RP1_INT_END as the
> > > number of interrupts but I thought that the specific interrupt numbers should
> > > be documented in some way or another. Since no one is currently referencing
> > > those defines, would it be better to just turn those in a multiline comment
> > > just to describe them in a more compact form?  
> > 
> > So, here's a couple of proposals about the interrupt defines:
> > 
> > - since they were banned from devicetree, and are not used anywhere in the code,
> >   turn them into a (admittedly long) multiline comment, so they are still at
> >   least documented
> > 
> > - since they were banned from devicetree, and are not use anywhere in the code,
> >   just drop them, we don't currently need them after all
> > 
> > Not sure what's the best way here, anyone can advise?
> 
> Maybe in the #interrupt-cells description in the device-tree binding?
> 
> In your patch 4, you describe this interrupt controller and you have:
>   '#interrupt-cells':
>     const: 2
>     description:
>       Specifies respectively the interrupt number and flags as defined
>       in include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h.
> 
> In this description, why not add the supported interrupt number values?
>     description: |
>       Specifies respectively the interrupt number and flags as defined
>       in include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h.
>       The supported values for the interrupt number are:
>         - IO BANK0: 0
>         - IO BANK1: 1
> ...
> 
> Or something similar.
> 
> This kind of description is already available. For instance:
>   https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/fsl,imx-sdma.yaml#L64
> 
> Does it make sense?

Seems fine to me, if there's no concern from anyone I will procede like that.
Thanks for the suggestion.

Andrea

> 
> Best regards,
> Hervé