[PATCH 2/4] arm64: pmu: add support for interrupt-affinity property

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 05:54:16PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Historically, the PMU devicetree bindings have expected SPIs to be
> listed in order of *logical* CPU number. This is problematic for
> bootloaders, especially when the boot CPU (logical ID 0) isn't listed
> first in the devicetree.
> 
> This patch adds a new optional property, interrupt-affinity, to the
> PMU node which allows the interrupt affinity to be described using
> a list of phandled to CPU nodes, with each entry in the list
> corresponding to the SPI at the same index in the interrupts property.
> 
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt |  6 +++
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h                  |  1 +
>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c                | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt
> index 75ef91d08f3b..a9281fc48743 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt
> @@ -24,6 +24,12 @@ Required properties:
>  
>  Optional properties:
>  
> +- interrupt-affinity : Valid only when using SPIs, specifies a list of phandles
> +                       to CPU nodes corresponding directly to the affinity of
> +		       the SPIs listed in the interrupts property. If absent,
> +		       the interrupts are assumed to be listed in logical CPU
> +		       order.

This covers the case we care about today, but it's problematic in cases
where the number of interrupts is not equal to the number of CPUs affine
to that interrupt. For example:

* PPIs in big.LITTLE systems, where we may need a node per cluster, and
  will need a way of associating a PMU node with a subset of all CPUs,
  despite having only one interrupt.

* Muxed SPIs per-cluster (is this likely to happen?)

The former can be covered by allowing multiple entries in
interrupt-affintiy for PPIs. I'm not sure if the latter is something we
need to cater for. If we do, then perhaps we need an interruptN-affinity
property per interrupt (though that's ugly and painful to deal with).

It would be nice to have a solution now that's not radically different
to what needs to come next.

Thanks,
Mark.