On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:07:49PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On Thursday 12 June 2014 07:37 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 06:49:17PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> >> Hi Jason,
> >>
> >> On Thursday 12 June 2014 06:21 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 05:23:11PM +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
> >>>> From: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> When, in the system due to varied reasons, interrupts might be unusable
> >>>> due to hardware behavior, but register maps do exist, then those
> >>>> interrupts
> >>>> should be skipped while mapping irq to crossbars.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <r.sricha...@ti.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com>
> >>>
> >>> Tony, have you applied these somewhere already?
> >>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c | 47
> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
> >>>> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
> >>>> index 51d4b87..847f6e3 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
> >>>> @@ -13,11 +13,13 @@
> >>>> #include <linux/io.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> >>>>
> >>>> #define IRQ_FREE -1
> >>>> #define IRQ_RESERVED -2
> >>>> +#define IRQ_SKIP -3
> >>>> #define GIC_IRQ_START 32
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> @@ -34,6 +36,16 @@ struct crossbar_device {
> >>>> void (*write) (int, int);
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * struct crossbar_data: Platform specific data
> >>>> + * @irqs_unused: array of irqs that cannot be used because of hw erratas
> >>>> + * @size: size of the irqs_unused array
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +struct crossbar_data {
> >>>> + const uint *irqs_unused;
> >>>> + const uint size;
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>> static struct crossbar_device *cb;
> >>>>
> >>>> static inline void crossbar_writel(int irq_no, int cb_no)
> >>>> @@ -119,10 +131,12 @@ const struct irq_domain_ops
> >>>> routable_irq_domain_ops = {
> >>>> .xlate = crossbar_domain_xlate
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> -static int __init crossbar_of_init(struct device_node *node)
> >>>> +static int __init crossbar_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> >>>> + const struct crossbar_data *data)
> >>>> {
> >>>> int i, size, max, reserved = 0, entry;
> >>>> const __be32 *irqsr;
> >>>> + const int *irqsk = NULL;
> >>>>
> >>>> cb = kzalloc(sizeof(*cb), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -194,6 +208,22 @@ static int __init crossbar_of_init(struct
> >>>> device_node *node)
> >>>> reserved += size;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> + /* Skip the ones marked as unused */
> >>>> + if (data) {
> >>>> + irqsk = data->irqs_unused;
> >>>> + size = data->size;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> >>>> + entry = irqsk[i];
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (entry > max) {
> >>>> + pr_err("Invalid skip entry\n");
> >>>> + goto err3;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + cb->irq_map[entry] = IRQ_SKIP;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> register_routable_domain_ops(&routable_irq_domain_ops);
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -208,18 +238,27 @@ err1:
> >>>> return -ENOMEM;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +/* irq number 10 cannot be used because of hw bug */
> >>>> +int dra_irqs_unused[] = { 10 };
> >>>> +struct crossbar_data cb_dra_data = { dra_irqs_unused,
> >>>> + ARRAY_SIZE(dra_irqs_unused) };
> >>>> +
> >>>> static const struct of_device_id crossbar_match[] __initconst = {
> >>>> - { .compatible = "ti,irq-crossbar" },
> >>>> + { .compatible = "ti,irq-crossbar", .data = &cb_dra_data },
> >>>> {}
> >>>> };
> >>>
> >>> This is a bug in all implementations of this IP? Or, a specific
> >>> SoC's implementation? Would this be better expressed in the dts via a
> >>> property? Can we expect future implementations to be fixed?
> >>>
> >>> thx,
> >>>
> >>> Jason.
> >> Infact this and PATCH#10 should be merged. I will change that.
> >>
> >> So in Socs's (2 so far) that do have a crossbar, some irqs are mapped
> >> through a crossbar and some are directly wired to the irqchip.
> >> These 'unused irqs' are those which are directly wired but they still
> >> have a crossbar register. Their routing cannot be changed. So this
> >> is not really expected usage of the crossbar hw ip. We initially thought
> >> having a dts property separately for this, but took this path to avoid
> >> loading the dts with additional bindings which may not be generic.
> >
> > How do you plan to handle future SoCs with this IP and possibly
> > different hard-wired irqs?
> Yes, that would require adding a new compatible in the above list and dts.
> So if adding a new binding in the dts would be cleaner, then i will change
> it that way.
Yes, unless the DT maintainers have shot the idea down, I'd prefer to
see a separate property. With the method you currently have, we'll have
to change the compatible when the IP _hasn't_ changed, just because the
SoC was wired differently.
We could trigger on the SoC compatible and maintain a table, but that
seems overly hacky when the dt is supposed to describe the hardware.
thx,
Jason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
