From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: joelf@ti.com (Joel Fernandes)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 08:37:44 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] irqchip: crossbar: Skip some irqs from getting mapped
 to crossbar
In-Reply-To: <536CD9CE.9040504@ti.com>
References: <1399299527-10955-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com>	<1399299527-10955-4-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com>	<536BD9D8.4080905@ti.com>	<20140508203659.GA5620@kahuna>	<CAD=GYpbQQxQgKd3oZcAuWrxoD4VrkKzpybd11qwxs405HSUVGw@mail.gmail.com>	<536C0DC4.7090309@ti.com>	<CAD=GYpav4mHaqo4jfb0ePchf3cvuvSnFKj_+osbrt_8-tYRRrQ@mail.gmail.com>	<536C2071.8040502@ti.com>
 <CAD=GYpbRn=LEthpAUX9LNBGTB4iDs7TGiSSgLJuuS0tSatRRJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <536CD01F.2070506@ti.com> <536CD9CE.9040504@ti.com>
Message-ID: <536CDA28.40307@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 05/09/2014 08:36 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Nishanth,
> 
> On 05/09/2014 07:54 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> [..]
>> Yep - thanks Santosh for clarifying this. Now, we still have the
>> issues that I pointed out in [1] - without resolving which, we should
>> not enable crossbar for dra74x/72x.
>>
>> A. taking example of PMU
>> 	interrupts = <GIC_SPI 131 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>
>> this wont work. instead the crossbar driver needs some sort of a hint
>> to know that it should not map these on crossbar register instead
>> assign GIC mapping directly.
>>
>> I propose doing the following
>> #define GIC_CROSSBAR_PASSTHROUGH(irq_no) ((irq_no) | (0x1 << 31))
>>
>> and dts will define the following:
>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI GIC_CROSSBAR_PASSTHROUGH(131) IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>
> 
> I would pick something smaller like GIC_SKIP_CROSSBAR.
> 
>> This will also work for the other cases (B.2, B.3)
>>
>> For B.2: L3_APP_IRQ:
>> instead of:
>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI  5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>
>> we do:
>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI GIC_CROSSBAR_PASSTHROUGH(10) IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>
>>
>> For B.3: NMI
>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI GIC_CROSSBAR_PASSTHROUGH(133) IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>
>>
>> xlate is easy ->
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
>> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
>> index de021638..fd09ab4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
>> @@ -112,6 +112,10 @@ static int crossbar_domain_xlate(struct
>> irq_domain *d,
>>  {
>>         unsigned long ret;
>>
>> +       /* Check to see if direct GIC mapping is required */
>> +       if (intspec[1] & BIT(31))
>> +               return intspec[1] & ~BIT[31];
>> +
>>         ret = get_prev_map_irq(intspec[1]);
>>         if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(ret))
> 
> Sounds good, one problem I see here though is once you do the xlate, the
> information that the IRQ number is GIC cross bar is lost because you are
> 0'ing bit 31. Then how will map/unmap decide if it needs to be crossbar
> mapped/unmapped or GIC?
> 

Correcting myself here, I meant "IRQ number is GIC cross bar skipped".