[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86o7syoq4t.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 17:28:18 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: drop quirk for two-cell variant
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:20:26 +0000,
Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me> wrote:
>
> As the special handling of edge-triggered interrupts are defined in the
> PLIC spec, we can assume it's not a quirk, but a feature of the PLIC
> spec; thus making it a quirk and use quirk-based codepath is not so
> necessary.
It *is* necessary.
>
> Move to a #interrupt-cells-based practice which will allow both device
> trees without interrupt flags and with interrupt flags work for all
> compatible strings.
No. You're tying together two unrelated concepts:
- Edges get dropped in some implementations (and only some). You can
argue that the architecture allows it, but I see it is an
implementation bug.
- The need for expressing additional information in the interrupt
specifier is not necessarily related to the above. Other interrupt
controllers use extra cells to encode the interrupt affinity, for
example.
I want these two things to be kept separate. Otherwise, once we get
some fancy ACPI support for RISCV (no, please...), we'll have to redo
the whole thing...
> In addition, this addresses a stable version DT binding violation --
> Linux v5.19 comes with "thead,c900-plic" with #interrupt-cells defined to
> be 1 instead of 2, this commit will allow DTs that complies to Linux
> v5.19 binding work (although no such DT is devliered to the public now).
*That* is what should get fixed.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists