[PATCH 5/5] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization

[Rob Herring]

Benoit,

On 09/15/2011 05:07 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On 9/15/2011 9:55 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On 14 September 2011 22:01, Rob Herring<robherring2 at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> From: Rob Herring<rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>>>
>>> This adds gic initialization using device tree data. The initialization
>>> functions are intended to be called by a generic OF interrupt
>>> controller parsing function once the right pieces are in place.
>>>
>>> PPIs are handled using 3rd cell of interrupts properties to specify
>>> the cpu
>>> mask the PPI is assigned to.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring<rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>>> ---
>>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |   53
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   arch/arm/common/gic.c                         |   55
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>   arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h           |   10 +++++
>>>   3 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/gic.c b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
>>> index d1ccc72..14de380 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/common/gic.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +void __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;
>>> +
>>> +       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);
>>> +       domain->irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(-1, 0, domain->nr_irq,
>>> numa_node_id());
>>
>> For exynos4, all the interrupts originating from GIC are statically
>> mapped to start from 32 in the linux virq space (GIC SPI interrupts
>> start from 64). In the above code, since irq_base would be 0 for
>> exynos4, the interrupt mapping is not working correctly. In your
>> previous version of the patch, you have given a option to the platform
>> code to choose the offset. Could that option be added to this series
>> also. Or a provision to use platform specific translate function
>> instead of the irq_domain_simple translator.
> 
> I have another concern on a similar topic.
> 
> On OMAP4 the SoC interrupts external to the MPU (SPI) have an offset of
> 32. Only the internal PPI are between 0 and 31.
> 
> For the moment we add 32 to every SoC interrupts in the irq.h define,

Those defines will not be used in the DT case. So the question is
whether to add 32 or not in the DT. Since we have just a single node and
a linear mapping of PPIs and SPIs, the only choice is to have SPIs start
at 32. And from the h/w definition, SPIs always start at 32, so it's in
agreement.

> but I'm assuming that this offset calculation should be done thanks to a
> dedicated irq domain for the SPI.
> The real HW physical number start at 0, and thus this is that value that
> should be in the irq binding of the device.
> 
> So ideally we should have a irq domain for the PPI starting at 0 and
> another one for the SPI starting at 32. Or 32 and 64 for the exynos4
> case, but it looks like the PPI/SPI offset is always 32.
> 

That offset of SPIs is always there. If you have a GIC as a secondary
controller, It will have 32 reserved interrupts and the register layout
is exactly the same as a cpu's GIC.

Since the idea of splitting PPIs for each core out to a flattened linux
irq map has been abandoned, I see no reason to have more than 1 domain
with a simple linear translation. Ultimately, domains will do dynamic
irqdesc allocation and the translation within the gic will be completely
dynamic.

The exynos4 case appears to be another controller hooked up in parallel
to the GIC. The GIC itself is exactly the same as other platforms AFAICT.

Rob