On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 13:12 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 09/08/2019 10:31, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > The "regs" property of the "mrvl,mmp2-mux-intc" devices are silly. They
> > are offsets from intc's base, not addresses on the parent bus. At this
> > point it probably can't be fixed.
> >
> > On an OLPC XO-1.75 machine, the muxes are children of the intc, not the
> > axi bus, and thus of_address_to_resource() won't work. We should treat
> > the values as mere integers as opposed to bus addresses.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c | 20 +++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c
> > index 14618dc0bd396..af9cba4a51c2e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c
> > @@ -424,9 +424,9 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(mmp2_intc, "mrvl,mmp2-intc",
> > mmp2_of_init);
> > static int __init mmp2_mux_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> > struct device_node *parent)
> > {
> > - struct resource res;
> > int i, ret, irq, j = 0;
> > u32 nr_irqs, mfp_irq;
> > + u32 reg[4];
> >
> > if (!parent)
> > return -ENODEV;
> > @@ -438,18 +438,20 @@ static int __init mmp2_mux_of_init(struct device_node
> > *node,
> > pr_err("Not found mrvl,intc-nr-irqs property\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > - ret = of_address_to_resource(node, 0, &res);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For historical reasonsm, the "regs" property of the
> > + * mrvl,mmp2-mux-intc is not a regular * "regs" property containing
> > + * addresses on the parent bus, but offsets from the intc's base.
> > + * That is why we can't use of_address_to_resource() here.
> > + */
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(node, "reg", reg, ARRAY_SIZE(reg));
>
> This will return 0 even if you've read less than your expected 4 u32s.
> You may want to try of_property_read_variable_u32_array instead.
Will it? Unless I'm reading the of_property_read_u32_array()
documentation wrong, it suggests that would return -EOVERFLOW in that
case.
It ignores the extra values it the property is larger. I guess that is
not a good thing and we still want to use
of_property_read_variable_u32_array() though.
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > pr_err("Not found reg property\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > - icu_data[i].reg_status = mmp_icu_base + res.start;
> > - ret = of_address_to_resource(node, 1, &res);
> > - if (ret < 0) {
> > - pr_err("Not found reg property\n");
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > - icu_data[i].reg_mask = mmp_icu_base + res.start;
> > + icu_data[i].reg_status = mmp_icu_base + reg[0];
> > + icu_data[i].reg_mask = mmp_icu_base + reg[2];
> > icu_data[i].cascade_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
> > if (!icu_data[i].cascade_irq)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
Thanks
Lubo
