From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
To: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com>
Cc: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: dts: omap5: Update GPIO with address space and interrupts
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:59:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5086BECA.9070502@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5086B316.6000001@ti.com>
On 10/23/2012 10:09 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Seb,
>>
>> On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote:
>>> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for
>>> OMAP5
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
>>>
>>> gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 {
>>> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio";
>>> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>;
>>> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>;
>>> ti,hwmods = "gpio1";
>>> gpio-controller;
>>> #gpio-cells = <2>;
>>
>> I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add
>> nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent
>> is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a
>> device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device
>> node.
>>
>> So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for
>> "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It
>> will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent".
>>
>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
>> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node.
>
> Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so
> increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current
> case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already
> un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time.
Yes it will definitely increase the size, so that could slow things down.
> That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what
> is the real impact.
Right, I wonder what the key functions are we need to benchmark to get
an overall feel for what is best? Right now I am seeing some people add
the interrupt-parent for device nodes and others not. Ideally we should
be consistent, but at the same time it is probably something that we can
easily sort out later. So not a big deal either way.
Cheers
Jon
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jon-hunter@ti.com (Jon Hunter)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: dts: omap5: Update GPIO with address space and interrupts
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:59:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5086BECA.9070502@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5086B316.6000001@ti.com>
On 10/23/2012 10:09 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Seb,
>>
>> On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote:
>>> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for
>>> OMAP5
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
>>>
>>> gpio1: gpio at 4ae10000 {
>>> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio";
>>> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>;
>>> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>;
>>> ti,hwmods = "gpio1";
>>> gpio-controller;
>>> #gpio-cells = <2>;
>>
>> I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add
>> nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent
>> is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a
>> device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device
>> node.
>>
>> So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for
>> "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It
>> will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent".
>>
>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
>> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node.
>
> Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so
> increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current
> case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already
> un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time.
Yes it will definitely increase the size, so that could slow things down.
> That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what
> is the real impact.
Right, I wonder what the key functions are we need to benchmark to get
an overall feel for what is best? Right now I am seeing some people add
the interrupt-parent for device nodes and others not. Ideally we should
be consistent, but at the same time it is probably something that we can
easily sort out later. So not a big deal either way.
Cheers
Jon
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
To: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com>
Cc: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
<devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
<linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: dts: omap5: Update GPIO with address space and interrupts
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:59:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5086BECA.9070502@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5086B316.6000001@ti.com>
On 10/23/2012 10:09 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 04:49 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Seb,
>>
>> On 10/23/2012 03:37 AM, Sebastien Guiriec wrote:
>>> Add base address and interrupt line inside Device Tree data for
>>> OMAP5
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Guiriec <s-guiriec@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> index 42c78be..9e39f9f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
>>> @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
>>>
>>> gpio1: gpio@4ae10000 {
>>> compatible = "ti,omap4-gpio";
>>> + reg = <0x4ae10000 0x200>;
>>> + interrupts = <0 29 0x4>;
>>> ti,hwmods = "gpio1";
>>> gpio-controller;
>>> #gpio-cells = <2>;
>>
>> I am wondering if we should add the "interrupt-parent" property to add
>> nodes in the device-tree source. I know that today the interrupt-parent
>> is being defined globally, but when device-tree maps an interrupt for a
>> device it searches for the interrupt-parent starting the current device
>> node.
>>
>> So in other words, for gpio1 it will search the gpio1 binding for
>> "interrupt-parent" and if not found move up a level and search again. It
>> will keep doing this until it finds the "interrupt-parent".
>>
>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
>> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node.
>
> Mmm, I'm not that sure. it will increase the size of the blob, so
> increase the time to load it and then to parse it. Where in the current
> case, it is just going up to the parent node using the already
> un-flatten tree in memory and thus that should not take that much time.
Yes it will definitely increase the size, so that could slow things down.
> That being said, it might be interesting to benchmark that to see what
> is the real impact.
Right, I wonder what the key functions are we need to benchmark to get
an overall feel for what is best? Right now I am seeing some people add
the interrupt-parent for device nodes and others not. Ideally we should
be consistent, but at the same time it is probably something that we can
easily sort out later. So not a big deal either way.
Cheers
Jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-23 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-23 8:37 [PATCH v2 0/4] ARM: dts: Update OMAP5 with address space and interrupts Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] ARM: dts: omap5: Update GPIO " Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 14:49 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 14:49 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 14:49 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 15:09 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-23 15:09 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-23 15:09 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-23 15:59 ` Jon Hunter [this message]
2012-10-23 15:59 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 15:59 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 16:07 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-23 16:07 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-23 16:07 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-23 16:15 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 16:15 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 16:15 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-24 7:44 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-24 7:44 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-24 7:44 ` Benoit Cousson
2012-10-23 16:55 ` Mitch Bradley
2012-10-23 16:55 ` Mitch Bradley
[not found] ` <5086CC02.6070801-D5eQfiDGL7eakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-23 23:15 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 23:15 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 23:15 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 0:18 ` Mitch Bradley
2012-10-24 0:18 ` Mitch Bradley
2012-10-23 8:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: dts: omap5: Update I2C " Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] ARM: dts: omap5: Update UART " Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] ARM: dts: omap5: Update MMC " Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
2012-10-23 8:37 ` Sebastien Guiriec
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=5086BECA.9070502@ti.com \
--to=jon-hunter@ti.com \
--cc=b-cousson@ti.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=s-guiriec@ti.com \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/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.