On 2018-02-23 14:37, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
> 
> On 23/02/18 12:16, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On 2018-02-02 15:58, Marc Zyngier wrote:

>>> Why 3? Reading the DT binding, this is indeed set to 3 without any
>>> reason. I'd suggest this becomes 2, encoding the pin number and the
>>> trigger information, as the leading 0 is quite useless. Yes, I know
>>> other examples in the kernel are using this 0, and that was a
>>> consequence of retrofitting the omitted interrupt controllers (back in
>>> the days of the stupid gic_arch_extn...). Don't do that.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Marc
>>
>> I'm about to send out a new revision of the ls-extirq patchset, and
>> thanks to you pointing me to these patches, I've read the comments on
>> the various revisions of this series and tried to take those into
>> account. But the above confused me, because in response to my first RFC
>> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10102643/) we have
>>
>> On 2017-12-08 17:09, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 08/12/17 15:11, Alexander Stein wrote:
>>>> Hi Rasmus,
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Required properties:
>>>>> +- compatible: should be "fsl,ls1021a-extirq"
>>>>> +- interrupt-controller: Identifies the node as an interrupt controller
>>>>> +- #interrupt-cells: Use the same format as specified by GIC in
>> arm,gic.txt.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really need 3 interrupt-cells here? As you've written below
>> you don't
>>>> support PPI anyway the 1st flag might be dropped then. So support
>> just 2 cells:
>>>> * IRQ number (IRQ0 - IRQ5)
>>>> * IRQ flags
>>>
>>> The convention for irqchip stacked on top of a GIC is to keep the
>>> interrupt specifier the same. It makes the maintenance if the DT much
>>> easier, and doesn't hurt at all.
>>
>> Personally, I'd actually prefer the simpler interrupt specifiers without
>> a redundant 0. Maybe I'm just missing some difference between this case
>> and the ls-extirq one?
> The difference is that you're adding a new irqchip to an existing DT,
> and you get some possible breakage. Maybe you'd be happy with the
> breakage, that's your call (and the maintainer's).

OK. In the ls1021a case, I actually think "breaking" any existing users
if and when they move to the new driver/irqchip is a good thing: the
power-on-reset value is such that the lines have the polarity inverted.
So there could be some board with a device with either a EDGE_FALLING or
LEVEL_LOW interrupt connected to one of the external interrupt lines,
which is described in DT by "lying" and using the opposite flag.
Changing #interrupt-cells prevents such (ab)users from just changing
interrupt-parent and calling it a day.

 In the QC case, it is
> old brand new, so no harm in doing the right thing from day one>
> It is in the end an implementation decision, and you could go either way.

Doing the right thing sounds nice, so I'll go with that :)

Thanks,
Rasmus

Reply via email to