| Message ID | 1412864980-20273-4-git-send-email-yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 09/10/14 15:29, Joe.C wrote: > From: "Joe.C" <yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com> > > Add support to use gic as a parent for stacked irq domain. > > Signed-off-by: Joe.C <yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com> > --- > drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > index dda6dbc..17f5aa6 100644 > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > @@ -767,19 +767,17 @@ void __init gic_init_physaddr(struct device_node *node) > static int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq, > irq_hw_number_t hw) > { > + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(d, irq, hw, &gic_chip, d->host_data); > if (hw < 32) { > irq_set_percpu_devid(irq); > - irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip, > - handle_percpu_devid_irq); > + irq_set_handler(irq, handle_percpu_devid_irq); > set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_NOAUTOEN); > } else { > - irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip, > - handle_fasteoi_irq); > + irq_set_handler(irq, 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; > } > > @@ -795,8 +793,6 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d, > { > unsigned long ret = 0; > > - if (d->of_node != controller) > - return -EINVAL; > if (intsize < 3) > return -EINVAL; > > @@ -839,6 +835,46 @@ static struct notifier_block gic_cpu_notifier = { > }; > #endif > > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY > +static int gic_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq, > + unsigned int nr_irqs, void *arg) > +{ > + int i, ret; > + irq_hw_number_t hwirq; > + unsigned int type = IRQ_TYPE_NONE; > + struct of_phandle_args *irq_data = arg; > + > + ret = gic_irq_domain_xlate(domain, irq_data->np, irq_data->args, > + irq_data->args_count, &hwirq, &type); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) > + gic_irq_domain_map(domain, virq+i, hwirq+i); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static void gic_irq_domain_free(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq, > + unsigned int nr_irqs) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) { > + irq_set_handler(virq + i, NULL); > + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq + i, 0, NULL, NULL); > + } > +} > + > +static const struct irq_domain_ops gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops = { > + .alloc = gic_irq_domain_alloc, > + .free = gic_irq_domain_free, > +}; > +#else > +#define gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops 0 > +#endif /* CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY */ > + > static const struct irq_domain_ops gic_irq_domain_ops = { > .map = gic_irq_domain_map, > .unmap = gic_irq_domain_unmap, > @@ -952,7 +988,11 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, > > gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */ > > - if (of_property_read_u32(node, "arm,routable-irqs", > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY) && > + of_find_property(node, "arm,irq-domain-hierarchy", NULL)) > + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, gic_irqs, > + &gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops, gic); I really think that looking for a property is the wrong thing to do. If "node" is non-NULL, then we're pretty sure that we're initializing from DT, and that a pure linear domain should be the right thing, leaving the legacy stuff for the few non-DT platforms that are still around. Thanks, M.
On Thursday 09 October 2014 17:59:56 Marc Zyngier wrote: > > @@ -952,7 +988,11 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, > > > > gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */ > > > > - if (of_property_read_u32(node, "arm,routable-irqs", > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY) && > > + of_find_property(node, "arm,irq-domain-hierarchy", NULL)) > > + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, gic_irqs, > > + &gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops, gic); > > I really think that looking for a property is the wrong thing to do. If > "node" is non-NULL, then we're pretty sure that we're initializing from > DT, and that a pure linear domain should be the right thing, leaving the > legacy stuff for the few non-DT platforms that are still around. FWIW, these are the remaining ones that use gic: arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/core.c: gic_init(0, 29, IOMEM(CNS3XXX_TC11MP_GIC_DIST_BASE_VIRT), arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_eb.c: gic_init(0, 29, __io_address(REALVIEW_EB11MP_GIC_DIST_BASE), arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_eb.c: gic_init(1, 96, __io_address(REALVIEW_EB_GIC_DIST_BASE), arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_eb.c: gic_init(0, 29, __io_address(REALVIEW_EB_GIC_DIST_BASE), arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pb1176.c: gic_init(0, IRQ_DC1176_GIC_START, arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pb1176.c: gic_init(1, IRQ_PB1176_GIC_START, arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pb11mp.c: gic_init(0, 29, __io_address(REALVIEW_TC11MP_GIC_DIST_BASE), arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pb11mp.c: gic_init(1, IRQ_PB11MP_GIC_START, arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pba8.c: gic_init(0, IRQ_PBA8_GIC_START, arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pbx.c: gic_init(0, 29, __io_address(REALVIEW_PBX_TILE_GIC_DIST_BASE), arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pbx.c: gic_init(0, IRQ_PBX_GIC_START, arch/arm/mach-shmobile/intc-sh73a0.c: gic_init(0, 29, gic_dist_base, gic_cpu_base); arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.c: gic_init(0, 29, distbase, arch/arm/mach-vexpress/ct-ca9x4.c: gic_init(0, 29, ioremap(A9_MPCORE_GIC_DIST, SZ_4K), Linus Walleij is working on realview, Pawel already has a patch for vexpress, the tegra one can just be removed and the Renesas team will deal with shmobile. This basically leaves cns3xxx, which now has a new maintainer but I suspect we won't have DT-only support for it too soon anyway. Arnd
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 17:59 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 09/10/14 15:29, Joe.C wrote > > @@ -952,7 +988,11 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, > > > > gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */ > > > > - if (of_property_read_u32(node, "arm,routable-irqs", > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY) && > > + of_find_property(node, "arm,irq-domain-hierarchy", NULL)) > > + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, gic_irqs, > > + &gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops, gic); > > I really think that looking for a property is the wrong thing to do. If > "node" is non-NULL, then we're pretty sure that we're initializing from > DT, and that a pure linear domain should be the right thing, leaving the > legacy stuff for the few non-DT platforms that are still around. > > Thanks, > > M. The only reason I introduce "arm,irq-domain-hierarchy" property is trying to keep original behavior when hierarchy irq domain is not used. Without this, when a board init GIC with DT, all driver will have to use devicetree. I'm not sure we want to break things like this. I will remove this and just use linear for all DT in my next version. Joe.C
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c index dda6dbc..17f5aa6 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c @@ -767,19 +767,17 @@ void __init gic_init_physaddr(struct device_node *node) static int gic_irq_domain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq, irq_hw_number_t hw) { + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(d, irq, hw, &gic_chip, d->host_data); if (hw < 32) { irq_set_percpu_devid(irq); - irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip, - handle_percpu_devid_irq); + irq_set_handler(irq, handle_percpu_devid_irq); set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_NOAUTOEN); } else { - irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip, - handle_fasteoi_irq); + irq_set_handler(irq, 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; } @@ -795,8 +793,6 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d, { unsigned long ret = 0; - if (d->of_node != controller) - return -EINVAL; if (intsize < 3) return -EINVAL; @@ -839,6 +835,46 @@ static struct notifier_block gic_cpu_notifier = { }; #endif + +#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY +static int gic_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq, + unsigned int nr_irqs, void *arg) +{ + int i, ret; + irq_hw_number_t hwirq; + unsigned int type = IRQ_TYPE_NONE; + struct of_phandle_args *irq_data = arg; + + ret = gic_irq_domain_xlate(domain, irq_data->np, irq_data->args, + irq_data->args_count, &hwirq, &type); + if (ret) + return ret; + + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) + gic_irq_domain_map(domain, virq+i, hwirq+i); + + return 0; +} + +static void gic_irq_domain_free(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq, + unsigned int nr_irqs) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) { + irq_set_handler(virq + i, NULL); + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq + i, 0, NULL, NULL); + } +} + +static const struct irq_domain_ops gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops = { + .alloc = gic_irq_domain_alloc, + .free = gic_irq_domain_free, +}; +#else +#define gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops 0 +#endif /* CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY */ + static const struct irq_domain_ops gic_irq_domain_ops = { .map = gic_irq_domain_map, .unmap = gic_irq_domain_unmap, @@ -952,7 +988,11 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start, gic_irqs -= hwirq_base; /* calculate # of irqs to allocate */ - if (of_property_read_u32(node, "arm,routable-irqs", + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY) && + of_find_property(node, "arm,irq-domain-hierarchy", NULL)) + gic->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, gic_irqs, + &gic_irq_domain_hierarchy_ops, gic); + else 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());