From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] irqchip: Add driver for Loongson-3 I/O interrupt controller Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:02:17 +0100 Message-ID: <45615c1a-7af8-3496-5369-4b2f174a76e7@kernel.org> References: <20190827085302.5197-1-jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com> <20190827085302.5197-5-jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com> <82c4b9ed-7270-74ce-6e10-165182e540dd@flygoat.com> <20190828075940.549e1983@why> <619b1d35-7bc2-999f-5a51-fb2efdc63f60@flygoat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <619b1d35-7bc2-999f-5a51-fb2efdc63f60@flygoat.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jiaxun Yang Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, chenhc@lemote.com, paul.burton@mips.com, tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.co, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 28/08/2019 16:31, Jiaxun Yang wrote: > > On 2019/8/28 下午2:59, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:27:05 +0800 >> Jiaxun Yang wrote: >> >>> On 2019/8/28 上午12:45, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>>> On 27/08/2019 09:52, Jiaxun Yang wrote: >>>>> + chained_irq_enter(chip, desc); >>>>> + >>>>> + pending = readl(priv->intc_base + LS3_REG_INTC_EN_STATUS) & >>>>> + readl(priv->intc_base + LS3_REG_INTC_STATUS); >>>> Reading the enabled status from the HW on each interrupt? I'm sure >>>> that's pretty cheap... >>> Seems expensive but to deal with a buggy hardware... That's worthy. >> How broken is it? You very much seem to rely on the HW being correct >> here, since you trust it exclusively. I'd expect the enable mask to be >> a SW construct if you didn't blindly trust it > Hi Marc > > Thanks for your answering. > > The vendor code did this and said there is a HW issue. I just don't have > the guts to remove this check. > Seems like sometimes masked interrupt may get ISR set wrongly. And that would just as well avoided by a SW managed mask. >> And if this is truly the right way to do it, please document the >> various problems with the controller so that we don't break it at a >> later time. > Thanks, will do. >> >> Then how comes this comes from the irqchip's DT node? This should be >> part of the endpoint's interrupt specifier. > > In theory it should be, However if we set different interrupt > lines/cores on that controller, interrupts may get lost. It means we can > only have single parent core/interrupt. > > So I'd prefer just set them uniformly by controller's dt-binding to > prevent confusing. And I disagree. You can document the restriction, and even maybe enforce it by validating the DT one way or another. But we're not putting what ends up being a routing table in the irqchip binding. M. -- Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny...