[PATCH v9 02/12] PCI: OF: Parse and map the IRQ when adding the PCI device.

[Catalin Marinas]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:30:52AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:56:32AM +0100, Wei Yang wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 04:49:59PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > >On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:58:04PM +0100, Wei Yang wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > >> > int __weak pcibios_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >> > {
> > >> >+	dev->irq = of_irq_parse_and_map_pci(dev, 0, 0);
> > >> >+
> > >> > 	return 0;
> > >> > }
> > >> 
> > >> For this, my suggestion is to add arch dependent function to setup the irq
> > >> line for pci devices. I can't find an obvious reason this won't work on other
> > >> archs, but maybe this will hurt some of them?
> > >
> > >I'm not sure I understand your point. Architectures that support OF will obviously
> > >benefit from this common approach, and for the other ones the function is empty
> > >so it will not change existing behaviour. If you are suggesting that I should
> > >create a new API that each architecture could go and implement for setting up the
> > >IRQ line then I would agree that it would be nice to have that, but the question
> > >is how many architectures are outside OF that need this?
> > 
> > My suggestion is to define the pcibios_add_device() for arm arch, like the one
> > in arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c. If my understanding is correct, this
> > patch set address the pci bus setup mostly on arm arch.
> 
> And also arm64 at the least.
...
> Well, it will become necessary as old code gets dismantled and converted towards
> this patchset. To give you an example that I'm familiar with, for arch/arm the
> host bridge drivers have moved into drivers/pci/host, but they still depend/use
> the bios32 infrastructure that takes care of setting up the irq. When they switch
> to my version they would have to go and debug the "irq not being assigned" issue
> and it is quite likely that some of the people doing the conversion will complain
> about my code rather than understanding the issue. What I'm trying to do is to
> make switching to my patchset as painless as possible, with a cleanup to remove
> redundant operations coming after the switchover.

While the goal is fine, until we see a common pattern for what needs to
go into pcibios_add_device() I think we should have an arm64-specific
implementation (and probably an arm32 specific one as well). I can see
powerpc uses it for setting the DMA ops. Would we have a similar need on
arm64 to choose between coherent and non-coherent dma_ops?

Also at some point we'll get ACPI support, so I'm not sure what we do
with assigning the dev->irq here but definitely of_* functions won't
work.

-- 
Catalin