From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: drop quirk for two-cell variant
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 17:28:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86o7syoq4t.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221121042026.419383-1-uwu@icenowy.me>
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:20:26 +0000,
Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me> wrote:
>
> As the special handling of edge-triggered interrupts are defined in the
> PLIC spec, we can assume it's not a quirk, but a feature of the PLIC
> spec; thus making it a quirk and use quirk-based codepath is not so
> necessary.
It *is* necessary.
>
> Move to a #interrupt-cells-based practice which will allow both device
> trees without interrupt flags and with interrupt flags work for all
> compatible strings.
No. You're tying together two unrelated concepts:
- Edges get dropped in some implementations (and only some). You can
argue that the architecture allows it, but I see it is an
implementation bug.
- The need for expressing additional information in the interrupt
specifier is not necessarily related to the above. Other interrupt
controllers use extra cells to encode the interrupt affinity, for
example.
I want these two things to be kept separate. Otherwise, once we get
some fancy ACPI support for RISCV (no, please...), we'll have to redo
the whole thing...
> In addition, this addresses a stable version DT binding violation --
> Linux v5.19 comes with "thead,c900-plic" with #interrupt-cells defined to
> be 1 instead of 2, this commit will allow DTs that complies to Linux
> v5.19 binding work (although no such DT is devliered to the public now).
*That* is what should get fixed.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: drop quirk for two-cell variant
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 17:28:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86o7syoq4t.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221121042026.419383-1-uwu@icenowy.me>
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:20:26 +0000,
Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me> wrote:
>
> As the special handling of edge-triggered interrupts are defined in the
> PLIC spec, we can assume it's not a quirk, but a feature of the PLIC
> spec; thus making it a quirk and use quirk-based codepath is not so
> necessary.
It *is* necessary.
>
> Move to a #interrupt-cells-based practice which will allow both device
> trees without interrupt flags and with interrupt flags work for all
> compatible strings.
No. You're tying together two unrelated concepts:
- Edges get dropped in some implementations (and only some). You can
argue that the architecture allows it, but I see it is an
implementation bug.
- The need for expressing additional information in the interrupt
specifier is not necessarily related to the above. Other interrupt
controllers use extra cells to encode the interrupt affinity, for
example.
I want these two things to be kept separate. Otherwise, once we get
some fancy ACPI support for RISCV (no, please...), we'll have to redo
the whole thing...
> In addition, this addresses a stable version DT binding violation --
> Linux v5.19 comes with "thead,c900-plic" with #interrupt-cells defined to
> be 1 instead of 2, this commit will allow DTs that complies to Linux
> v5.19 binding work (although no such DT is devliered to the public now).
*That* is what should get fixed.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-22 17:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-21 4:20 [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: drop quirk for two-cell variant Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-21 4:20 ` Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-22 17:28 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2022-11-22 17:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-23 12:38 ` Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-23 12:38 ` Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-23 13:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-23 13:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-23 13:16 ` Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-23 13:16 ` Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-23 13:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-23 13:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-23 13:35 ` Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-23 13:35 ` Icenowy Zheng
2022-11-23 14:07 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-23 14:07 ` Marc Zyngier
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=86o7syoq4t.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=samuel@sholland.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=uwu@icenowy.me \
/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.