Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for looking at this.

On 10/08/11 21:15, Rob Herring wrote:
> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
> 
> This adds gic initialization using device tree data. An example device tree
> binding looks like this:
> 
> intc: interrupt-controller@fff11000 {
>         compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>         #interrupt-cells = <1>;

The SPI interrupt can either be level-high or edge-rising. So you
probably want #interrupt-cells to be equal to 2...

> 	#size-cells = <0>;
> 	#address-cells = <1>;
>
>         interrupt-controller;
>         reg = <0xfff11000 0x1000>,
>               <0xfff10100 0x100>;
> 
> 	gicppi0: gic-ppi@0 {
> 		compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic-ppi";
> 		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
> 		interrupt-controller;
> 		reg = <0>;
> 	};
> 	gicppi1: gic-ppi@1 {
> 		compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic-ppi";
> 		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
> 		interrupt-controller;
> 		reg = <1>;
> 	};
> };
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
> ---
> 
> Marc,
> 
> This adds PPI handling. I took your binding and modified it a bit to make
> things a bit simpler for the linux side. Rather than having SPIs as a 
> child node, I kept them at the parent node. Then PPIs are optional child
> nodes. This way, a secondary GIC is no more complex than a simple
> interrupt controller.

Maybe it's not a real problem, but this makes PPIs a sort of "cascaded"
interrupt controller, which I find rather misleading. In reality, there
is no hierarchy between SPIs and PPIs.

Is it legal for an interrupt controller to have an interrupt controller
as a parent, without an interrupt number? How will irq_of_parse_and_map
react to this? I'm quite sure of_irq_find_parent(ppi) will return the
wrong thing (the SPI controller).

> The PPI init simply creates an irqdomain for each cpu interface. By using 
> a domain per PPI and SPI, the translation is simple. The domain irq_base
> is always 0, so PPI # is always equal to linux irq number. This can be
> changed if the linux irq numbering of PPI's changes, but that should not
> affect the binding.
> 
> The documentation still needs updating.
> 
> Rob
> 
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |   28 +++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/common/gic.c                         |   40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h           |    3 ++
>  3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 0 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..78012e3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> +* ARM Generic Interrupt Controller
> +
> +Some ARM cores have an interrupt controller called GIC. The ARM GIC
> +representation in the device tree should be done as under:-
> +
> +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 1.
> +- reg : Specifies base physical address(s) and size of the GIC registers. The
> +  first 2 values are the GIC distributor register base and size. The 2nd 2
> +  values are the GIC cpu interface register base and size.
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +intc: interrupt-controller@fff11000 {
> +        compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
> +        #interrupt-cells = <1>;
> +        interrupt-controller;
> +        reg = <0xfff11000 0x1000>,
> +              <0xfff10100 0x100>;
> +};
> +
> +
> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/gic.c b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
> index f13298e..b0f11b3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/common/gic.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,10 @@
>  #include <linux/smp.h>
>  #include <linux/cpumask.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>  
>  #include <asm/irq.h>
>  #include <asm/mach/irq.h>
> @@ -394,3 +398,39 @@ void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq)
>  	writel_relaxed(map << 16 | irq, gic_data[0].dist_base + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
>  }
>  #endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> +static int gic_cnt __initdata = 0;
> +
> +void __init gic_of_init(struct of_intc_desc *d)
> +{
> +	struct device_node *np = d->controller;
> +	void __iomem *cpu_base;
> +	void __iomem *dist_base;
> +	int irq;
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON(!d || !d->controller))
> +		return;
> +
> +	dist_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
> +	WARN(!dist_base, "unable to map gic dist registers\n");
> +
> +	cpu_base = of_iomap(np, 1);
> +	WARN(!cpu_base, "unable to map gic cpu registers\n");
> +
> +	gic_init(gic_cnt, d->irq_base, dist_base, cpu_base);
> +	irq_domain_add_simple(d->controller, d->irq_base);
> +
> +	if (d->parent) {
> +		irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
> +		gic_cascade_irq(gic_cnt, irq);
> +	}
> +	gic_cnt++;
> +}
> +
> +void __init gic_of_ppi_init(struct of_intc_desc *d)
> +{
> +	irq_domain_add_simple(d->controller, d->irq_base);
> +}
> +
> +#endif
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h
> index 435d3f8..a6594d4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h
> @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@ extern void __iomem *gic_cpu_base_addr;
>  extern struct irq_chip gic_arch_extn;
>  
>  void gic_init(unsigned int, unsigned int, void __iomem *, void __iomem *);
> +struct of_intc_desc;
> +void gic_of_init(struct of_intc_desc *d);
> +void gic_of_ppi_init(struct of_intc_desc *d);
>  void gic_secondary_init(unsigned int);
>  void gic_cascade_irq(unsigned int gic_nr, unsigned int irq);
>  void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq);


-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...