All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] irqchip: irq-mvebu-odmi: new driver for platform MSI on Marvell 7K/8K
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:27:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3474575.KNRGuJK4d6@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160218171623.664dabd1@free-electrons.com>

On Thursday 18 February 2016 17:16:23 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:08:05 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 16:58:54 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > +- marvell,spi-base     : List of GIC base SPI interrupts, one for each
> > > +                         ODMI frame. Those SPI interrupts are 0-based,
> > > +                         i.e marvell,spi-base = <128> will use SPI #96.
> > > +                         See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > > +                         for details about the GIC Device Tree binding.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why are these not just in an 'interrupts' property as we do for other
> > nested irqchips?
> 
> I modeled this after the GICv2m bindings. I think the reason is that if
> we were to use the interrupts property, we should be listing *all*
> interrupts of the parent interrupt controller we are using. Which would
> be quite painful when your ODMI interrupt controller uses 32 interrupts
> of the parent controller (I think for the GICv2m, it's even more).
> 
> I.e, we currently say:
> 
>         marvell,spi-base = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
> 
> but in fact we are using 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
> 137, etc. until 159.
> 
> If you think
> 
>         interrupts = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
> 
> is still correct, then why not. But I believe this might be confusing,
> as people will think that we are only using interrupts 128, 136, 144
> and 152, and not 129, 133, 147 or 158.
> 

Ok, got it. Your current version seems fine then.

	Arnd

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lior Amsalem <alior@marvell.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Nadav Haklai <nadavh@marvell.com>,
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: irq-mvebu-odmi: new driver for platform MSI on Marvell 7K/8K
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:27:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3474575.KNRGuJK4d6@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160218171623.664dabd1@free-electrons.com>

On Thursday 18 February 2016 17:16:23 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:08:05 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 16:58:54 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > +- marvell,spi-base     : List of GIC base SPI interrupts, one for each
> > > +                         ODMI frame. Those SPI interrupts are 0-based,
> > > +                         i.e marvell,spi-base = <128> will use SPI #96.
> > > +                         See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > > +                         for details about the GIC Device Tree binding.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why are these not just in an 'interrupts' property as we do for other
> > nested irqchips?
> 
> I modeled this after the GICv2m bindings. I think the reason is that if
> we were to use the interrupts property, we should be listing *all*
> interrupts of the parent interrupt controller we are using. Which would
> be quite painful when your ODMI interrupt controller uses 32 interrupts
> of the parent controller (I think for the GICv2m, it's even more).
> 
> I.e, we currently say:
> 
>         marvell,spi-base = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
> 
> but in fact we are using 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
> 137, etc. until 159.
> 
> If you think
> 
>         interrupts = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
> 
> is still correct, then why not. But I believe this might be confusing,
> as people will think that we are only using interrupts 128, 136, 144
> and 152, and not 129, 133, 147 or 158.
> 

Ok, got it. Your current version seems fine then.

	Arnd

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-18 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-18 15:58 [PATCH v2] irqchip: irq-mvebu-odmi: new driver for platform MSI on Marvell 7K/8K Thomas Petazzoni
2016-02-18 15:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-02-18 16:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-18 16:08   ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-18 16:16   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-02-18 16:16     ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-02-18 16:27     ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2016-02-18 16:27       ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-02-18 16:41 ` Marc Zyngier
2016-02-18 16:41   ` Marc Zyngier
2016-02-19  9:35   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-02-19  9:35     ` Thomas Petazzoni

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3474575.KNRGuJK4d6@wuerfel \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.