[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110926220013.GF9194@gallagher>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:00:13 +0100
From: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
To: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, marc.zyngier@....com,
thomas.abraham@...aro.org, b-cousson@...com, shawn.guo@...aro.org,
dave.martin@...aro.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:32:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 04:11 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:49:11PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On 09/26/2011 02:57 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> >>> Hi Rob,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:24:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> +int __init gic_of_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + void __iomem *cpu_base;
> >>>> + void __iomem *dist_base;
> >>>> + int irq;
> >>>> + struct irq_domain *domain = &gic_data[gic_cnt].domain;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (WARN_ON(!node))
> >>>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + dist_base = of_iomap(node, 0);
> >>>> + WARN(!dist_base, "unable to map gic dist registers\n");
> >>>> +
> >>>> + cpu_base = of_iomap(node, 1);
> >>>> + WARN(!cpu_base, "unable to map gic cpu registers\n");
> >>>> +
> >>>> + domain->nr_irq = gic_irq_count(dist_base);
> >>>> + /* subtract off SGIs. Also subtract off PPIs for secondary GICs */
> >>>> + if (parent)
> >>>> + domain->nr_irq -= 32;
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + domain->nr_irq -= 16;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + domain->irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(-1, 16, domain->nr_irq, numa_node_id());
> >>>
> >>> The way I understand irq_alloc_descs() (probably not very well) is that
> >>> having the irq parameter < 0 and the from parameter 16 means that it
> >>> needs to find domain->nr_irq descs starting from at least 16. But if
> >>> the base is greater than 16, does this still work with the gic entry
> >>> macros as they are?
> >>
> >> No, but that would only happen if a platform calls irq_alloc_descs prior
> >> to this code. The root controller must be initialized first (for other
> >> reasons as well). There are no calls to irq_alloc_descs in arch/arm.
> >>
> >> With the MULTI_IRQ GIC support Marc Z is working on, we could make the
> >> GIC irq mapping be completely dynamic. Although, there's probably not
> >> much reason to do so for the root controller.
> >
> > OK, that makes sense. I think that if you were to do
> > irq_alloc_descs(16, 16, domain->nr_irqs, num_node_id()) then that will
> > guarantee the descriptors start from 16 (if they are available) which is
> > probably nicer.
> >
> That would break secondary GICs though as it would always fail. For
> secondary GIC, we skip SGIs and PPIs and allocate the first available
> block of irq_desc's.
Ahh, OK that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation Rob! That'll
hopefully help me with a common VIC binding.
Jamie
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists