[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16d01eebc1693916fc74e1e75458d6c0f080cf37.camel@icenowy.me>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 20:38:56 +0800
From: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
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
在 2022-11-22星期二的 17:28 +0000,Marc Zyngier写道:
> 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.
As the specification allows it, it's not an implementation bug -- and
for those which do not show this problem, it's possible that it's just
all using the same trigger type (e.g. Rocket).
>
> - 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 think in these situations, if the interrupt controller does not
contain any special handling for edge interrupts, we can just describe
them as level ones in SW.
>
> 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.
Supporting all stable versions' DT binding is our promise, I think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists