[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <993d5da60a87443995347ee2a4c74959@realtek.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:58:56 +0000
From: James Tai <james.tai@...ltek.com>
To: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-realtek-soc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-realtek-soc@...ts.infradead.org>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] arm64: dts: realtek: Add Realtek rtd1619 and mjolnir
Hi Andreas,
>
> This conflicts with what I see in BSP irq mux code here:
> https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M4-bsp/blob/master/linux-rtk/drivers/ir
> qchip/irq-rtd16xx.h
>
> That does show UR0 as bit 2 for the iso irq mux, as for previous SoCs.
> Is that code wrong, or does the same UART0 IP block have two alternative
> interrupts for backwards compatibility? I therefore held back RTD1619 irq mux
> patches from my irqchip v4 series [1].
>
It is code wrong. The UR0 should remove from "irq-rtd16xx.h".
> The BSP DT does assign non-mux interrupts to the UART node like you did:
> https://github.com/BPI-SINOVOIP/BPI-M4-bsp/blob/master/linux-rtk/arch/arm
> 64/boot/dts/realtek/rtd16xx/rtd-16xx.dtsi
> And I obviously trust that you tested your DT to produce serial output.
>
> Also note how there are UR1_TO and UR2_TO (TO = timeout?) in addition to
> regular UR1 and UR2 interrupts in the mux above, just as for RTD1295 and
> RTD1195 (UR1/UR1_TO only). From my irqmux v4 series posted last night I had
> to drop those additional interrupts property values from the DT [2], as they
> violate mainline's DesignWare DT schema's maxItems 1 and would require a
> new compatible string (and a driver patch to make use of it).
>
Yes, TO is interrupt timeout.
Regards,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists