[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 2/2] dt/bindings: Add bindings for Layerscape external irqs
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 09:16:50PM +0000, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 27/09/2019 18.11, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:15:13PM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> >> +Required properties:
> >> +- compatible: should be "fsl,<soc-name>-extirq", e.g. "fsl,ls1021a-extirq".
> >> +- interrupt-controller: Identifies the node as an interrupt controller
> >> +- #interrupt-cells: Must be 2. The first element is the index of the
> >> + external interrupt line. The second element is the trigger type.
> >> +- interrupt-parent: phandle of GIC.
> >> +- reg: Specifies the Interrupt Polarity Control Register (INTPCR) in the SCFG.
> >> +- fsl,extirq-map: Specifies the mapping to interrupt numbers in the parent
> >> + interrupt controller. Interrupts are mapped one-to-one to parent
> >> + interrupts.
> >
> > This should be an 'interrupt-map' instead.
> Rob, thanks for your review comments. I know you said the same thing at
> v5, and it might seem like they are ignored.

Well, I didn't ignore them. It just wasn't clear to me from the previous
discussions which way you want to go.

> However, I asked a couple of followup questions
> (
> I'd really appreciate it if you could (a) point to some documentation
> on how to write that interrupt-map and (b) explain how this is
> different from the Qualcomm PDC case I tried to copy and which had
> your Reviewed-By.

I guess, we can have a look at other interrupt controllers and how they
handle the interrupt-map property. For example:,rza1-irqc.txt

I need to send a v7 anyway, because I forgot to include the SOC_LS1021A
in the build process.

> >> +
> >> +Optional properties:
> >> +- fsl,bit-reverse: This boolean property should be set on the LS1021A
> >> + if the SCFGREVCR register has been set to all-ones (which is usually
> >> + the case), meaning that all reads and writes of SCFG registers are
> >> + implicitly bit-reversed. Other compatible platforms do not have such
> >> + a register.
> >
> > Couldn't you just read that register and tell?
> In theory, yes, but as far as I understand (and as I wrote) it's
> specific to the ls1021a. Of course one can decide whether it's
> necessary/possible to read it based on the compatible string, but one
> would also need an extra reg property to have its address - but that
> register is not really part of the extirq "device" we're trying to
> describe. So would it need to be represented as its own subnode of scfg?

Keep in mind, that not all Layerscapes have that feature and the
corresponding register. As you said that may be handled via compatible
string. However, the bit-reverse property looks like the simplest
solution to me.

> If it is set at all, it's done within the first few instructions after
> reset (before control is even handed to the bootloader), so I see it as
> a kind of quirk of the hardware. The data sheet says "SCFG bit reverse
> (SCFG_SCFGREVCR) must be written 0xFFFF_FFFF as a part of initialization
> sequence before writing to any other SCFG register." which, taken
> literally, means we don't need the property at all and can just assume
> it for the ls1021a (i.e., do it based on compatible string alone) - but
> I think it should be read as "if you're going to write this register, it
> must be done first thing".
> > Does this apply to only the extirq register or all of scfg?
> All of scfg. It really seems like some accident/bad joke coming out of a
> discussion between a hardware and software engineer on the enumeration
> of bits, with the hardware guy ending up saying "alright, have it
> whichever way you want it", causing even more pain :(
> >> +
> >> +Example:
> >> + scfg: scfg@1570000 {
> >> + compatible = "fsl,ls1021a-scfg", "syscon";
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > As the child node(s) are memory mapped, this should not be 0. And you
> > need 'ranges'.
> Indeed - I think I understand this a little better now than I did back then.


> Thanks,
> Rasmus

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-28 11:24    [W:0.070 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site