Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Support ROHM BD96801 scalable PMIC

Matti Vaittinen
2024-05-09T07:03:46Z

On 5/9/24 08:08, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 01:52:27PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> On 4/5/24 12:19, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>> On 4/4/24 16:15, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>
>>>>> I would expect each parent interrupt to show up as a separate remap_irq.
>
>>>>> So if we arrange to supply a name when we register multiple domains
>>>>> things should work fine?
>
>>> After my latest findings, yes, I think so. How to do this correctly is
>>> beyond me though. The __irq_domain_create() seems to me that the name is
>>> meant to be the dt-node name when the controller is backed by a real
>>> dt-node. Naming of the irq_domain_alloc_named_fwnode() sounds to me like
>
> ...
>
>> If we wanted to support multiple HWIRQs / regmap-IRQ controller, it would
>> require us to duplicate almost everything in the struct regmap_irq_chip for
>> every new parent IRQ. The status/mask register information, IRQ type, etc.
>> Naturally, it would require also duplicating lot of the data contained in
>> the struct regmap_irq_chip_data. I am not sure if this could be done so the
>> change is not reflected in the existing IRQ data initialization macros etc.
>> Furthermore, some API changes would be required like changes to
>> regmap_irq_get_domain().
>
> I don't understand what the difficulty is here - we're creating multiple
> interrupt controllers so I'd expect to have to have full definitions of
> each, and since everything is referenced by name from the root
> regmap_irq_chip which gets registered it's just a case of supplying
> different names and all the helpers should be fine?
>
>> Thus, forcing the regmap-IRQ to support multiple parents instead of having
>> own regmap-IRQ instance / parent IRQ feels like fitting square item to a
>> round hole. I am sure fixing all the bugs I caused would give donate a lot
>> of EXP-points though :rolleyes:
>
> Right, my suggestion is to register multiple regmap_irq instrances - one
> per parent - and supply a name that allows all the display/debugfs stuff
> that currently uses the dev_name() to deduplicate. You'd end up
> sticking -primary, -secondary or whatever name was supplied onto the
> names we currently use.
>
>> Another option I see, is trying to think if irq-domain name could be
>> changed. (This is what the RFC v3 does, [ab]using the
>> irq_domain_update_bus_token()). I was a bit put off by the idea of
>> 'instantiating' multiple domains (or regmap-IRQ controllers) from a single
>> node, but more I think of this, more I lean towards it. Besides, this is not
>
> Yes, register mutliple controllers with different names.

Thanks for the guidance Mark. The controller name is not a problem.
Problem is that I don't see a (proper) way to supply a name for the IRQ
domain which gets registered by regmap-IRQ. IRQ domain code picks the
name for the domain by the device-tree node. Both of our IRQ controllers
would be instantiated from same node => the IRQ domain will get same
name => debugfs will conflict.

My "solution" was simply dropping the ERRB IRQ from the driver (for now
at least). I did send that as a series without 'RFC' - but made a
mistake and restarted the versioning from v1. I am currently working
with 2 other PMICs, one of them does also provide similar setup of two
IRQ lines. Thus, I think being able to provide a name (suffix?) for IRQ
domain when registering it instead of just using the name of the DT node
is something I should look into. It's just nice to know someone else
thinks it is valid approach.

Thanks for the input!

Yours,
-- Matti

--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~