[V4,1/4] DRIVERS: IRQCHIP: IRQ-GIC: Add support for routable irqs

Commit Message

R Sricharan Nov. 14, 2013, 12:18 p.m. UTC

In some socs the gic can be preceded by a crossbar IP which
routes the peripheral interrupts to the gic inputs. The peripheral
interrupts are associated with a fixed crossbar input line and the
crossbar routes that to one of the free gic input line.

The DT entries for peripherals provides the fixed crossbar input line
as its interrupt number and the mapping code should associate this with
a free gic input line. This patch adds the support inside the gic irqchip
to handle such routable irqs. The routable irqs are registered in a linear
domain. The registered routable domain's callback should be implemented
to get a free irq and to configure the IP to route it.

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
Cc: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Russell King <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rajendra Nayak <[e-mail]>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <[e-mail]>
Cc: Grant Likely <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rob Herring <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <[e-mail]>
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
---
 [V2] Added default routable-irqs functions to avoid
      unnecessary if checks as per Thomas Gleixner comments
      and renamed routable-irq binding as per
      Kumar Gala <[e-mail]> comments.

 [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
      xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |    6 ++
 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c                     |   81 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h               |    7 ++-
 3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

Comments

Thomas Gleixner Nov. 14, 2013, 12:33 p.m. UTC | #1

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Sricharan R wrote:
>  [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
>       xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments

Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

R Sricharan Nov. 14, 2013, 12:34 p.m. UTC | #2

On Thursday 14 November 2013 06:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Sricharan R wrote:
>>  [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
>>       xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
 Thanks Thomas..

Regards,
 Sricharan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Mark Rutland Nov. 14, 2013, 2:01 p.m. UTC | #3

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:18:47PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
> In some socs the gic can be preceded by a crossbar IP which
> routes the peripheral interrupts to the gic inputs. The peripheral
> interrupts are associated with a fixed crossbar input line and the
> crossbar routes that to one of the free gic input line.
> 
> The DT entries for peripherals provides the fixed crossbar input line
> as its interrupt number and the mapping code should associate this with
> a free gic input line. This patch adds the support inside the gic irqchip
> to handle such routable irqs. The routable irqs are registered in a linear
> domain. The registered routable domain's callback should be implemented
> to get a free irq and to configure the IP to route it.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Russell King <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Tony Lindgren <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Rajendra Nayak <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Grant Likely <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Rob Herring <[e-mail]>
> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <[e-mail]>
> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
> ---
>  [V2] Added default routable-irqs functions to avoid
>       unnecessary if checks as per Thomas Gleixner comments
>       and renamed routable-irq binding as per
>       Kumar Gala <[e-mail]> comments.
> 
>  [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
>       xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments
> 
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |    6 ++
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c                     |   81 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h               |    7 ++-
>  3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
> index 3dfb0c0..5357745 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
> @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ Optional
>    regions, used when the GIC doesn't have banked registers. The offset is
>    cpu-offset * cpu-nr.
>  
> +- arm,routable-irqs : Total number of gic irq inputs which are not directly
> +		  connected from the peripherals, but are routed dynamically
> +		  by a crossbar/multiplexer preceding the GIC. The GIC irq
> +		  input line is assigned dynamically when the corresponding
> +		  peripheral's crossbar line is mapped.

I'm not keen on the design of the arm,routable-irqs property. The set of
IRQs which the crossbar IP can use is a property of which IRQ lines it
has routed to the GIC. I don't see why that should be considered a
property of the GIC; it's a property of the crossbar IP's attachment to
the GIC.

Given we already have a mechanism for describing the attachment (i.e.
the interrupts property) where the property appears on the node for the
device generating/propagating the interrupt, I don't see why we should
do differently here.

Listing 160 interrupts in the crossbar node is clearly something we
don't want to have to do.  If we had a property that we could use to
define a range (or multiple ranges) of interrupts, then the crossbar
driver could go and request those ranges from its interrupt-parent (the
GIC) and the GIC driver could reserve/allocate the irqdomain at that
time.

This feels like a point-hack, counter in style to the vast majority of
provider/consumer bindings. It only allows for one multiplexer before
the GIC. What if we had multiple multiplexers feeding into the GIC?
Describing the attachment on the multiplexer allows that to be handled,
describing that on the GIC does not.

Describing the attachement on the multiplexer would also prevent the
duplication of information (i.e. the max-irqs property in the crossbar
binding).

Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

R Sricharan Nov. 14, 2013, 4:46 p.m. UTC | #4

Hi Mark,

On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:31 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:18:47PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
>> In some socs the gic can be preceded by a crossbar IP which
>> routes the peripheral interrupts to the gic inputs. The peripheral
>> interrupts are associated with a fixed crossbar input line and the
>> crossbar routes that to one of the free gic input line.
>>
>> The DT entries for peripherals provides the fixed crossbar input line
>> as its interrupt number and the mapping code should associate this with
>> a free gic input line. This patch adds the support inside the gic irqchip
>> to handle such routable irqs. The routable irqs are registered in a linear
>> domain. The registered routable domain's callback should be implemented
>> to get a free irq and to configure the IP to route it.
>>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Russell King <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Rajendra Nayak <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Grant Likely <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <[e-mail]>
>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <[e-mail]>
>> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
>> ---
>>  [V2] Added default routable-irqs functions to avoid
>>       unnecessary if checks as per Thomas Gleixner comments
>>       and renamed routable-irq binding as per
>>       Kumar Gala <[e-mail]> comments.
>>
>>  [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
>>       xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments
>>
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |    6 ++
>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c                     |   81 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h               |    7 ++-
>>  3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>> index 3dfb0c0..5357745 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>> @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ Optional
>>    regions, used when the GIC doesn't have banked registers. The offset is
>>    cpu-offset * cpu-nr.
>>  
>> +- arm,routable-irqs : Total number of gic irq inputs which are not directly
>> +		  connected from the peripherals, but are routed dynamically
>> +		  by a crossbar/multiplexer preceding the GIC. The GIC irq
>> +		  input line is assigned dynamically when the corresponding
>> +		  peripheral's crossbar line is mapped.
> I'm not keen on the design of the arm,routable-irqs property. The set of
> IRQs which the crossbar IP can use is a property of which IRQ lines it
> has routed to the GIC. I don't see why that should be considered a
> property of the GIC; it's a property of the crossbar IP's attachment to
> the GIC.
>
> Given we already have a mechanism for describing the attachment (i.e.
> the interrupts property) where the property appears on the node for the
> device generating/propagating the interrupt, I don't see why we should
> do differently here.
 We did try using interrupts=<> property for all peripherals and
 mapping them as crossbar's parent. But that approach of representing
 crossbar as a interrupt parent was not accepted, since the crossbar
 was just routing the interrupts from peripherals to GIC and nothing more.
 Also  mapping all the interrupts using interrupt-map like property by a fixed way
 in DTS itself was considered hacky
> Listing 160 interrupts in the crossbar node is clearly something we
> don't want to have to do.  If we had a property that we could use to
> define a range (or multiple ranges) of interrupts, then the crossbar
> driver could go and request those ranges from its interrupt-parent (the
> GIC) and the GIC driver could reserve/allocate the irqdomain at that
> time.
Again, this kind of approach of crossbar requesting irqs from GIC
was tried earlier and it did not go anywhere. Subsequently after lot of
discussions this design was considered the best one.

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg97085.html
> This feels like a point-hack, counter in style to the vast majority of
> provider/consumer bindings. It only allows for one multiplexer before
> the GIC. What if we had multiple multiplexers feeding into the GIC?
> Describing the attachment on the multiplexer allows that to be handled,
> describing that on the GIC does not.
 This is case where the interrupts to GIC is not coming from full irqchip,
 but just a router and support added in the GIC helps to handle
 such cases. In the case of more than one multiplexer, the crossbar
 driver should really take care of handling the downward muxes and
 crossbar like driver can be expanded to handle if such a scenario happens.
> Describing the attachement on the multiplexer would also prevent the
> duplication of information (i.e. the max-irqs property in the crossbar
> binding).
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
Here max-irqs is the total number of output lines of the crossbar itself and
its property.

Regards,
 Sricharan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Mark Rutland Nov. 15, 2013, 11:23 a.m. UTC | #5

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:46:36PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:31 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:18:47PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
> >> In some socs the gic can be preceded by a crossbar IP which
> >> routes the peripheral interrupts to the gic inputs. The peripheral
> >> interrupts are associated with a fixed crossbar input line and the
> >> crossbar routes that to one of the free gic input line.
> >>
> >> The DT entries for peripherals provides the fixed crossbar input line
> >> as its interrupt number and the mapping code should associate this with
> >> a free gic input line. This patch adds the support inside the gic irqchip
> >> to handle such routable irqs. The routable irqs are registered in a linear
> >> domain. The registered routable domain's callback should be implemented
> >> to get a free irq and to configure the IP to route it.
> >>
> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Russell King <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Tony Lindgren <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Rajendra Nayak <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Grant Likely <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Rob Herring <[e-mail]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <[e-mail]>
> >> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
> >> ---
> >>  [V2] Added default routable-irqs functions to avoid
> >>       unnecessary if checks as per Thomas Gleixner comments
> >>       and renamed routable-irq binding as per
> >>       Kumar Gala <[e-mail]> comments.
> >>
> >>  [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
> >>       xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments
> >>
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |    6 ++
> >>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c                     |   81 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h               |    7 ++-
> >>  3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
> >> index 3dfb0c0..5357745 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
> >> @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ Optional
> >>    regions, used when the GIC doesn't have banked registers. The offset is
> >>    cpu-offset * cpu-nr.
> >>  
> >> +- arm,routable-irqs : Total number of gic irq inputs which are not directly
> >> +		  connected from the peripherals, but are routed dynamically
> >> +		  by a crossbar/multiplexer preceding the GIC. The GIC irq
> >> +		  input line is assigned dynamically when the corresponding
> >> +		  peripheral's crossbar line is mapped.
> > I'm not keen on the design of the arm,routable-irqs property. The set of
> > IRQs which the crossbar IP can use is a property of which IRQ lines it
> > has routed to the GIC. I don't see why that should be considered a
> > property of the GIC; it's a property of the crossbar IP's attachment to
> > the GIC.
> >
> > Given we already have a mechanism for describing the attachment (i.e.
> > the interrupts property) where the property appears on the node for the
> > device generating/propagating the interrupt, I don't see why we should
> > do differently here.
>  We did try using interrupts=<> property for all peripherals and
>  mapping them as crossbar's parent. But that approach of representing
>  crossbar as a interrupt parent was not accepted, since the crossbar
>  was just routing the interrupts from peripherals to GIC and nothing more.
>  Also  mapping all the interrupts using interrupt-map like property by a fixed way
>  in DTS itself was considered hacky

I'm not suggesting you should interrupt-map. I agree that that
interrupt-map is not suitable for a dynamically configurable device like
the crossbar.

When you say that the crossbar is just routing the interrupts, at what
level is it doing so? Does it accept a logical interrupt and output
another logical interrupt, or does it just connect the two lines
electrically?

We don't necessarily have to use the interrupts property, but I still
think that the set of GIC input IRQ lines that the crossbar is wired to
should be described on the crossbar node.

> > Listing 160 interrupts in the crossbar node is clearly something we
> > don't want to have to do.  If we had a property that we could use to
> > define a range (or multiple ranges) of interrupts, then the crossbar
> > driver could go and request those ranges from its interrupt-parent (the
> > GIC) and the GIC driver could reserve/allocate the irqdomain at that
> > time.
> Again, this kind of approach of crossbar requesting irqs from GIC
> was tried earlier and it did not go anywhere. Subsequently after lot of
> discussions this design was considered the best one.
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg97085.html

As far as I can see, the comment there was to use irqdomains, which I am
not arguing against. I am arguing that the linkage of the GIC and the
crossbar is being described the wrong way around. The GIC input lines
that the crossbar is wired to should be described on the crossbar node,
and the crossbar driver should request the appropriate domain from the
GIC.

> > This feels like a point-hack, counter in style to the vast majority of
> > provider/consumer bindings. It only allows for one multiplexer before
> > the GIC. What if we had multiple multiplexers feeding into the GIC?
> > Describing the attachment on the multiplexer allows that to be handled,
> > describing that on the GIC does not.
>  This is case where the interrupts to GIC is not coming from full irqchip,
>  but just a router and support added in the GIC helps to handle
>  such cases. In the case of more than one multiplexer, the crossbar
>  driver should really take care of handling the downward muxes and
>  crossbar like driver can be expanded to handle if such a scenario happens.

That still feels like a hack. If there are multiple instances, I see no
reason why they should have to know about each other. It's fundamentally
at odds to the generic composable model we have now.

> > Describing the attachement on the multiplexer would also prevent the
> > duplication of information (i.e. the max-irqs property in the crossbar
> > binding).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> Here max-irqs is the total number of output lines of the crossbar itself and
> its property.

This would be implicit if the set of IRQ inputs on the GIC that these
lines fed out to were described.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Santosh Shilimkar Nov. 15, 2013, 3:01 p.m. UTC | #6

On Friday 15 November 2013 06:23 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:46:36PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:31 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:18:47PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>> In some socs the gic can be preceded by a crossbar IP which
>>>> routes the peripheral interrupts to the gic inputs. The peripheral
>>>> interrupts are associated with a fixed crossbar input line and the
>>>> crossbar routes that to one of the free gic input line.
>>>>
>>>> The DT entries for peripherals provides the fixed crossbar input line
>>>> as its interrupt number and the mapping code should associate this with
>>>> a free gic input line. This patch adds the support inside the gic irqchip
>>>> to handle such routable irqs. The routable irqs are registered in a linear
>>>> domain. The registered routable domain's callback should be implemented
>>>> to get a free irq and to configure the IP to route it.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Russell King <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Rajendra Nayak <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Grant Likely <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <[e-mail]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <[e-mail]>
>>>> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
>>>> ---
>>>>  [V2] Added default routable-irqs functions to avoid
>>>>       unnecessary if checks as per Thomas Gleixner comments
>>>>       and renamed routable-irq binding as per
>>>>       Kumar Gala <[e-mail]> comments.
>>>>
>>>>  [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
>>>>       xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments
>>>>
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |    6 ++
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c                     |   81 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h               |    7 ++-
>>>>  3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> index 3dfb0c0..5357745 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ Optional
>>>>    regions, used when the GIC doesn't have banked registers. The offset is
>>>>    cpu-offset * cpu-nr.
>>>>  
>>>> +- arm,routable-irqs : Total number of gic irq inputs which are not directly
>>>> +		  connected from the peripherals, but are routed dynamically
>>>> +		  by a crossbar/multiplexer preceding the GIC. The GIC irq
>>>> +		  input line is assigned dynamically when the corresponding
>>>> +		  peripheral's crossbar line is mapped.
>>> I'm not keen on the design of the arm,routable-irqs property. The set of
>>> IRQs which the crossbar IP can use is a property of which IRQ lines it
>>> has routed to the GIC. I don't see why that should be considered a
>>> property of the GIC; it's a property of the crossbar IP's attachment to
>>> the GIC.
>>>
>>> Given we already have a mechanism for describing the attachment (i.e.
>>> the interrupts property) where the property appears on the node for the
>>> device generating/propagating the interrupt, I don't see why we should
>>> do differently here.
>>  We did try using interrupts=<> property for all peripherals and
>>  mapping them as crossbar's parent. But that approach of representing
>>  crossbar as a interrupt parent was not accepted, since the crossbar
>>  was just routing the interrupts from peripherals to GIC and nothing more.
>>  Also  mapping all the interrupts using interrupt-map like property by a fixed way
>>  in DTS itself was considered hacky
> 
> I'm not suggesting you should interrupt-map. I agree that that
> interrupt-map is not suitable for a dynamically configurable device like
> the crossbar.
> 
> When you say that the crossbar is just routing the interrupts, at what
> level is it doing so? Does it accept a logical interrupt and output
> another logical interrupt, or does it just connect the two lines
> electrically?
> 
Its just makes electrical connection between input and output line and
thats it.

Regards,
Santosh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

R Sricharan Dec. 2, 2013, 10:26 a.m. UTC | #7

Hi Mark,

Sorry for delayed response. I was away for some time.

On Friday 15 November 2013 04:53 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:46:36PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:31 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:18:47PM +0000, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>> In some socs the gic can be preceded by a crossbar IP which
>>>> routes the peripheral interrupts to the gic inputs. The peripheral
>>>> interrupts are associated with a fixed crossbar input line and the
>>>> crossbar routes that to one of the free gic input line.
>>>>
>>>> The DT entries for peripherals provides the fixed crossbar input line
>>>> as its interrupt number and the mapping code should associate this with
>>>> a free gic input line. This patch adds the support inside the gic irqchip
>>>> to handle such routable irqs. The routable irqs are registered in a linear
>>>> domain. The registered routable domain's callback should be implemented
>>>> to get a free irq and to configure the IP to route it.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Russell King <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Rajendra Nayak <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Grant Likely <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <[e-mail]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <[e-mail]>
>>>> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[e-mail]>
>>>> ---
>>>>  [V2] Added default routable-irqs functions to avoid
>>>>       unnecessary if checks as per Thomas Gleixner comments
>>>>       and renamed routable-irq binding as per
>>>>       Kumar Gala <[e-mail]> comments.
>>>>
>>>>  [V3] Addressed unnecessary warn-on and updated default
>>>>       xlate function as per Thomas Gleixner comments
>>>>
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |    6 ++
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c                     |   81 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h               |    7 ++-
>>>>  3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> index 3dfb0c0..5357745 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> @@ -49,6 +49,11 @@ Optional
>>>>    regions, used when the GIC doesn't have banked registers. The offset is
>>>>    cpu-offset * cpu-nr.
>>>>  
>>>> +- arm,routable-irqs : Total number of gic irq inputs which are not directly
>>>> +		  connected from the peripherals, but are routed dynamically
>>>> +		  by a crossbar/multiplexer preceding the GIC. The GIC irq
>>>> +		  input line is assigned dynamically when the corresponding
>>>> +		  peripheral's crossbar line is mapped.
>>> I'm not keen on the design of the arm,routable-irqs property. The set of
>>> IRQs which the crossbar IP can use is a property of which IRQ lines it
>>> has routed to the GIC. I don't see why that should be considered a
>>> property of the GIC; it's a property of the crossbar IP's attachment to
>>> the GIC.
>>>
>>> Given we already have a mechanism for describing the attachment (i.e.
>>> the interrupts property) where the property appears on the node for the
>>> device generating/propagating the interrupt, I don't see why we should
>>> do differently here.
>>  We did try using interrupts=<> property for all peripherals and
>>  mapping them as crossbar's parent. But that approach of representing
>>  crossbar as a interrupt parent was not accepted, since the crossbar
>>  was just routing the interrupts from peripherals to GIC and nothing more.
>>  Also  mapping all the interrupts using interrupt-map like property by a fixed way
>>  in DTS itself was considered hacky
> I'm not suggesting you should interrupt-map. I agree that that
> interrupt-map is not suitable for a dynamically configurable device like
> the crossbar.
>
> When you say that the crossbar is just routing the interrupts, at what
> level is it doing so? Does it accept a logical interrupt and output
> another logical interrupt, or does it just connect the two lines
> electrically?
As Santosh, already mentioned this just makes a physical connection
 and thats it
>
> We don't necessarily have to use the interrupts property, but I still
> think that the set of GIC input IRQ lines that the crossbar is wired to
> should be described on the crossbar node.
>
>>> Listing 160 interrupts in the crossbar node is clearly something we
>>> don't want to have to do.  If we had a property that we could use to
>>> define a range (or multiple ranges) of interrupts, then the crossbar
>>> driver could go and request those ranges from its interrupt-parent (the
>>> GIC) and the GIC driver could reserve/allocate the irqdomain at that
>>> time.
>> Again, this kind of approach of crossbar requesting irqs from GIC
>> was tried earlier and it did not go anywhere. Subsequently after lot of
>> discussions this design was considered the best one.
>>
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg97085.html
> As far as I can see, the comment there was to use irqdomains, which I am
> not arguing against. I am arguing that the linkage of the GIC and the
> crossbar is being described the wrong way around. The GIC input lines
> that the crossbar is wired to should be described on the crossbar node,
> and the crossbar driver should request the appropriate domain from the
> GIC.
  The comment was and there was also a code snippet suggested which
 was to use GIC's irq domain and to use GIC xlate, map, unmap functions.
 This patch simply does that.
>>> This feels like a point-hack, counter in style to the vast majority of
>>> provider/consumer bindings. It only allows for one multiplexer before
>>> the GIC. What if we had multiple multiplexers feeding into the GIC?
>>> Describing the attachment on the multiplexer allows that to be handled,
>>> describing that on the GIC does not.
>>  This is case where the interrupts to GIC is not coming from full irqchip,
>>  but just a router and support added in the GIC helps to handle
>>  such cases. In the case of more than one multiplexer, the crossbar
>>  driver should really take care of handling the downward muxes and
>>  crossbar like driver can be expanded to handle if such a scenario happens.
> That still feels like a hack. If there are multiple instances, I see no
> reason why they should have to know about each other. It's fundamentally
> at odds to the generic composable model we have now.
>
Infact it looks like this because crossbar is not full irqchip and the
whole aim here was to use the existing infrastructure best to support this.
After all discussions, this was considered the ideal way. Atleast now,
we do not have any Socs with multiple *routers* feeding in to each other.

Regards,
 Sricharan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
index 3dfb0c0..5357745 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
@@ -49,6 +49,11 @@  Optional
   regions, used when the GIC doesn't have banked registers. The offset is
   cpu-offset * cpu-nr.
 
+- arm,routable-irqs : Total number of gic irq inputs which are not directly
+		  connected from the peripherals, but are routed dynamically
+		  by a crossbar/multiplexer preceding the GIC. The GIC irq
+		  input line is assigned dynamically when the corresponding
+		  peripheral's crossbar line is mapped.
 Example:
 
 	intc: interrupt-controller@fff11000 {
@@ -56,6 +61,7 @@  Example:
 		#interrupt-cells = <3>;
 		#address-cells = <1>;
 		interrupt-controller;
+		arm,routable-irqs = <160>;
 		reg = <0xfff11000 0x1000>,
 		      <0xfff10100 0x100>;
 	};
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index 9031171..b7b39a7 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -824,16 +824,25 @@  static int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
 		irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip,
 					 handle_fasteoi_irq);
 		set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_PROBE);
+
+		gic_routable_irq_domain_ops->map(d, irq, hw);
 	}
 	irq_set_chip_data(irq, d->host_data);
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void gic_irq_domain_unmap(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq)
+{
+	gic_routable_irq_domain_ops->unmap(d, irq);
+}
+
 static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
 				struct device_node *controller,
 				const u32 *intspec, unsigned int intsize,
 				unsigned long *out_hwirq, unsigned int *out_type)
 {
+	unsigned long ret = 0;
+
 	if (d->of_node != controller)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	if (intsize < 3)
@@ -843,11 +852,20 @@  static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
 	*out_hwirq = intspec[1] + 16;
 
 	/* For SPIs, we need to add 16 more to get the GIC irq ID number */
-	if (!intspec[0])
-		*out_hwirq += 16;
+	if (!intspec[0]) {
+		ret = gic_routable_irq_domain_ops->xlate(d, controller,
+							 intspec,
+							 intsize,
+							 out_hwirq,
+							 out_type);
+
+		if (IS_ERR_VALUE(ret))
+			return ret;
+	}
 
 	*out_type = intspec[2] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
-	return 0;
+
+	return ret;
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
@@ -871,9 +889,41 @@  static struct notifier_block gic_cpu_notifier = {
 
 const struct irq_domain_ops gic_irq_domain_ops = {
 	.map = gic_irq_domain_map,
+	.unmap = gic_irq_domain_unmap,
 	.xlate = gic_irq_domain_xlate,
 };
 
+/* Default functions for routable irq domain */
+static int gic_routable_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
+			      irq_hw_number_t hw)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void gic_routable_irq_domain_unmap(struct irq_domain *d,
+					  unsigned int irq)
+{
+}
+
+static int gic_routable_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
+				struct device_node *controller,
+				const u32 *intspec, unsigned int intsize,
+				unsigned long *out_hwirq,
+				unsigned int *out_type)
+{
+	*out_hwirq += 16;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+const struct irq_domain_ops gic_default_routable_irq_domain_ops = {
+	.map = gic_routable_irq_domain_map,
+	.unmap = gic_routable_irq_domain_unmap,
+	.xlate = gic_routable_irq_domain_xlate,
+};
+
+const struct irq_domain_ops *gic_routable_irq_domain_ops =
+					&gic_default_routable_irq_domain_ops;
+
 void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start,
 			   void __iomem *dist_base, void __iomem *cpu_base,
 			   u32 percpu_offset, struct device_node *node)
@@ -881,6 +931,7 @@  void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start,
 	irq_hw_number_t hwirq_base;
 	struct gic_chip_data *gic;
 	int gic_irqs, irq_base, i;
+	int nr_routable_irqs;
 
 	BUG_ON(gic_nr >= MAX_GIC_NR);
 
@@ -946,14 +997,24 @@  void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start,
 	gic->gic_irqs = gic_irqs;
 
 	gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */
-	irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(irq_start, 16, gic_irqs, numa_node_id());
-	if (IS_ERR_VALUE(irq_base)) {
-		WARN(1, "Cannot allocate irq_descs @ IRQ%d, assuming pre-allocated\n",
-		     irq_start);
-		irq_base = irq_start;
+
+	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "arm,routable-irqs", &nr_routable_irqs)) {
+		irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(irq_start, 16, gic_irqs,
+					   numa_node_id());
+		if (IS_ERR_VALUE(irq_base)) {
+			WARN(1, "Cannot allocate irq_descs @ IRQ%d, assuming pre-allocated\n",
+			     irq_start);
+			irq_base = irq_start;
+		}
+
+		gic->domain = irq_domain_add_legacy(node, gic_irqs, irq_base,
+					hwirq_base, &gic_irq_domain_ops, gic);
+	} else {
+		gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, nr_routable_irqs,
+						    &gic_irq_domain_ops,
+						    gic);
 	}
-	gic->domain = irq_domain_add_legacy(node, gic_irqs, irq_base,
-				    hwirq_base, &gic_irq_domain_ops, gic);
+
 	if (WARN_ON(!gic->domain))
 		return;
 
diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h
index cac496b..fcb02d7 100644
--- a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h
+++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h
@@ -81,6 +81,11 @@  int gic_get_cpu_id(unsigned int cpu);
 void gic_migrate_target(unsigned int new_cpu_id);
 unsigned long gic_get_sgir_physaddr(void);
 
+extern const struct irq_domain_ops *gic_routable_irq_domain_ops;
+static inline void __init register_routable_domain_ops
+					(const struct irq_domain_ops *ops)
+{
+	gic_routable_irq_domain_ops = ops;
+}
 #endif /* __ASSEMBLY */
-
 #endif