[PATCH 5/5] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization

[robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)]

On 09/14/2011 01:34 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On 14/09/11 18:57, Rob Herring wrote:
>> Marc,
>>
>> On 09/14/2011 12:46 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 14/09/11 17:31, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
>>>>
>>>> This adds gic initialization using device tree data. The initialization
>>>> functions are intended to be called by a generic OF interrupt
>>>> controller parsing function once the right pieces are in place.
>>>>
>>>> PPIs are handled using 3rd cell of interrupts properties to specify the cpu
>>>> mask the PPI is assigned to.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |   53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  arch/arm/common/gic.c                         |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h           |   10 +++++
>>>>  3 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..6c513de
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
>>>> +* ARM Generic Interrupt Controller
>>>> +
>>>> +ARM SMP cores are often associated with a GIC, providing per processor
>>>> +interrupts (PPI), shared processor interrupts (SPI) and software
>>>> +generated interrupts (SGI).
>>>> +
>>>> +Primary GIC is attached directly to the CPU and typically has PPIs and SGIs.
>>>> +Secondary GICs are cascaded into the upward interrupt controller and do not
>>>> +have PPIs or SGIs.
>>>> +
>>>> +Main node required properties:
>>>> +
>>>> +- compatible : should be one of:
>>>> +	"arm,cortex-a9-gic"
>>>> +	"arm,arm11mp-gic"
>>>> +- interrupt-controller : Identifies the node as an interrupt controller
>>>> +- #interrupt-cells : Specifies the number of cells needed to encode an
>>>> +  interrupt source.  The type shall be a <u32> and the value shall be 3.
>>>> +
>>>> +  The 1st cell is the interrupt number. 0-15 are reserved for SGIs. 16-31 are
>>>> +  for PPIs.
>>>> +
>>>> +  The 2nd cell is the level-sense information, encoded as follows:
>>>> +                    1 = low-to-high edge triggered
>>>> +                    2 = high-to-low edge triggered
>>>> +                    4 = active high level-sensitive
>>>> +                    8 = active low level-sensitive
>>>> +
>>>> +  Only values of 1 and 4 are valid for GIC 1.0 spec.
>>>> +
>>>> +  The 3rd cell contains the mask of the cpu number for the interrupt source.
>>>> +  The cpu mask is only valid for PPIs and shall be 0 for SPIs. This value shall
>>>> +  be 0 for PPIs.
>>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> Typo here ? The way I understand it, it should read "For PPIs, this
>>> value shall be the mask of the possible CPU numbers for the interrupt
>>> source" (or something to similar effect...).
>>>
>>
>> Cut and paste error. This sentence goes in the previous paragraph. What
>> I meant is the 2nd cell should contain 0 for PPIs as you cannot set the
>> edge/level on PPIs (that is always true, right?). I probably should also
>> add 0 in the list of values.
> 
> Ah, right. It makes sense indeed. You're correct about PPIs polarity,
> this is defined by the hardware and cannot be configured. But it may be
> interesting to have the DT to reflect the way the hardware is actually
> configured (on the Cortex-A9, some PPIs are configured active-low, and
> others are rising-edge).

So we should allow specifying what it is as the OS may need to know that.

> 
>> I take it you are otherwise fine with this binding?
> 
> I very much like the fact that it (or at least that's the way I
> understand it...) allows for a very compact expression of peripherals
> connected to PPIs.
> 
> What I'd like to write is the following:
> 
> twd at 1f000600 {
> 	compatible = "arm,11mpcore-twd";
> 	reg = <0x1f000600 0x100>;
> 	interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
> 	interrupt = <29 0 0xf>;
> }
> 
> where 0xf would indicate that the TWD is connected to all four cores. Is
> that correct?
> 
Yes, that's exactly why I did a mask and is what I have for twd on
highbank. Also, I specified SPIs as 0 specifically so no one gets the
idea to use the mask to set the affinity.

Rob