Re: [PATCH 03/12] of: Add binding document for MIPS GIC

David Daney
2014-09-04T00:06:30Z

On 09/03/2014 04:53 PM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:50 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Your comments don't really make sense to me in the context of my knowledge
>> of the GIC.
>>
>> Of course all the CP0 timer and performance counter interrupts are per-CPU
>> and routed directly to the corresponding CP0_Cause[IP7..IP2] bits. We are
>> don't need to give them further consideration.
>>
>>
>> Here is the scenario you should consider:
>>
>> o 16 CPU cores.
>> o 1 GIC routing interrupts from external sources to the 16 CPUs.
>> o 2 network controllers each with an interrupt line routed to the GIC.
>>
>> Q: What would the GIC "interrupts" property look like?
>>
>> Note that the GIC doesn't have a single "interrupt-parent", as it can route
>> interrupts to *all* 16 CPUs.
>>
>> I propose that the GIC have neither an "interrupt-parent", nor "interrupts".
>> The fact that it is an "mti,global-interrupt-controller", means that the
>> software drivers for the GIC already know how to route interrupts, and any
>> information the device tree could contain is redundant.
>
> Ok, I misunderstood your opposition to the binding.
>
> My intention for the "interrupt-parent" and "interrupts" property of
> the GIC was to express that GIC interrupts are routed to the CPU
> interrupt vectors and that a certain set of these vectors are
> available for use by the GIC. I would agree that these are mostly
> redundant (obviously the GIC routes interrupts to CPU interrupt
> vecotrs) and that it is not the most accurate description of the
> GIC-CPU relationship (the CPU interrupt controller are per-CPU, not
> global, and the GIC can route interrupts to any of them), though I'm
> not sure that there's a better way of describing it in DT.
>
> So that leaves us with something like this:
>
> interrupt-controller@1bdc0000 {
> compatible = "mti,global-interrupt-controller";
>
> interrupt-controller;
> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>
> available-cpu-vectors = <2>, <3>, ...

Exactly what I had in mind, except for the missing "reg" property.

This gives software the information it needs, but doesn't impose any policy.

I will defer to others on the exact name the "available-cpu-vectors"
should have.

> };
>
> DT folks, thoughts?
>
>