Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: at91/aic: add device tree support for AIC

Nicolas Ferre
2011-11-29T13:04:52Z

On 11/25/2011 04:28 PM, Jamie Iles :
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:51:06PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> On 22:26 Thu 24 Nov , Jamie Iles wrote:
>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:56:27PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> [...]
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
>>>> +static struct of_device_id aic_ids[] = {
>>>> + { .compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-aic" },
>>>> + { /*sentinel*/ }
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __init at91_aic_of_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct device_node *np;
>>>> +
>>>> + np = of_find_matching_node(NULL, aic_ids);
>>>> + if (np == NULL)
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> +
>>>> + at91_aic_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
>>>> + at91_aic_domain.of_node = np;
>>>
>>> I think this needs to be:
>>>
>>> at91_aic_domain.of_node = of_node_get(np);
>>>
>>> to keep the reference count.

Well, in fact the of_find_matching_node() function already indent the
ref. count...

>>>> + /* Keep refcount of the node */

... That is why I added this comment ^^

But maybe for sake of clarity, I may have used what you propose anyway.
What it your opinion?

>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +#else
>>>> +static int __init at91_aic_of_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return -ENOSYS;
>>>> +}
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> I think it's preferred if you use of_irq_init() here as it can handle
>>> the ordering of IRQ controllers. There are GIC and VIC bindings in
>>> -next that use this and provide a way for non-DT platforms to still use
>>> the drivers.
>> which is the case here as if the of_init fail we failback to the non-dt init
>>
>> and this IP is AT91 only
>
> Right, but it's not using the of_irq_init() interface which is the
> standard way of registering interrupt controllers and will correctly
> dependencies for you.
>
> So if you could have something like:
>
> void __init __at91_aic_init(unsigned int priority[NR_AIC_IRQS],
> void __iomem *regs,
> struct device_node *np)
> {
> /*
> * Do all of the writes to the AIC itself and configure
> * the IRQ domain.
> */
> }
>
> void __init at91_aic_init(unsigned int priority[NR_AIC_IRQS])
> {
> void __iomem *base = ioremap(AT91_AIC, 512);
>
> __at91_aic_init(priority, base, NULL);
> }
>
> int __init at91_aic_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> struct device_node *parent)
> {
> void __iomem *regs = of_iomap(node, 0);
>
> /*
> * Get priorities from the DT. If this was an array of cells
> * then that should be okay.
> */
> __at91_aic_init(dt_priorities, regs, node);
> }
>
> Then the DT based board initialisation can do:
>
> static const struct of_device_id at91_irq_of_match[] __initconst = {
> { .compatible = "atmel,at91-aic", .data = at91_aic_of_init },
> {}
> };
>
> static void __init at91_of_irq_init(void)
> {
> of_irq_init(at91_of_irq_init);
> }

That looks nice. I will try to implement this. I will try to figure out
when of_irq_init() is called compared to the other init_IRQ() function.

> Which is consistent with other platforms. However this does require
> that the priorities are encoded in the device-tree, but I guess that's a
> good thing anyway isn't it?

That is a annoying point: I do not want to add all this "default"
priority stuff in the DT. It is kind of useless until we use the
threaded interrupts everywhere and may bloat the DT...

I will try to find a way to pass the default priority table to the DT
called function.

Thanks for your review,
--
Nicolas Ferre