From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lina Iyer Subject: Re: [RFC v3 2/3] dt-bindings: sdm845-pinctrl: add wakeup interrupt parent for GPIO Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:39:59 -0700 Message-ID: <20181128173959.GC18262@codeaurora.org> References: <20181121000648.29262-1-ilina@codeaurora.org> <20181121000648.29262-3-ilina@codeaurora.org> <154283618199.88331.10217252750356423959@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20181126161455.GA28236@codeaurora.org> <154330994255.88331.11409511159882116164@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <20181127182123.GC28236@codeaurora.org> <154335513853.88331.9713562640538396853@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <154335513853.88331.9713562640538396853@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: evgreen@chromium.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rplsssn@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, thierry.reding@gmail.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 27 2018 at 14:45 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >Quoting Lina Iyer (2018-11-27 10:21:23) >> On Tue, Nov 27 2018 at 02:12 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> > >> >Two reasons. First, simplicity. The TLMM driver just needs to pass the >> >gpio number up to the PDC gpio domain and then that domain can figure >> >out what hwirq it maps to within the PDC hw irq space. I don't see any >> >reason why we have to know the hwirq of PDC within the TLMM driver >> >besides "let's not be different". >> > >> >And second, it makes it easier for us to implement the MPM case in the >> >TLMM driver by letting the TLMM code just ask "should I mask the irq >> >here or not?" by passing that with a wrapper struct around the fwspec >> >and a dedicated domain in the PDC/MPM driver. Keeping less things in the >> >TLMM driver and not driving the decision from DT but from tables in the >> >PDC driver also keeps things simple and reduces DT parsing code/time. >> > >> Couldn't this be simply achieved by matching the compatible flags for >> PDC/MPM bindings for the wakeup-parent in the TLMM driver? >> > >It could be, but then we would be making TLMM highly aware of the wakeup >parent It is is not aware of anything about the wakeup parent, just the compatible that indicates whether it needs to be mask locally or not. >and have to do compatible string matching in two places, instead >of making TLMM more abstractly aware that it needs to keep things masked >while irq parent deals with the interrupts. > Your approach seems too complex just to circumvent a simple match node. I think we are stretching too much to support something that is not a priority. -- Lina