Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] irqchip/sifive-plic: Add support for Renesas RZ/Five SoC

Lad, Prabhakar
2022-06-27T14:17:09Z

Hi Marc,

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 2:53 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 2022-06-27 14:12, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Prabhakar,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:06 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 9:53 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> >> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 2:19 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > > On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 10:38:18 +0100,
> >> > > "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 9:56 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> > > > > On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:43:26 +0100,
> >> > > > > Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > The Renesas RZ/Five SoC has a RISC-V AX45MP AndesCore with NCEPLIC100. The
> >> > > > > > NCEPLIC100 supports both edge-triggered and level-triggered interrupts. In
> >> > > > > > case of edge-triggered interrupts NCEPLIC100 ignores the next interrupt
> >> > > > > > edge until the previous completion message has been received and
> >> > > > > > NCEPLIC100 doesn't support pending interrupt counter, hence losing the
> >> > > > > > interrupts if not acknowledged in time.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > So the workaround for edge-triggered interrupts to be handled correctly
> >> > > > > > and without losing is that it needs to be acknowledged first and then
> >> > > > > > handler must be run so that we don't miss on the next edge-triggered
> >> > > > > > interrupt.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > This patch adds a new compatible string for Renesas RZ/Five SoC and adds
> >> > > > > > support to change interrupt flow based on the interrupt type. It also
> >> > > > > > implements irq_ack and irq_set_type callbacks.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> >> >
> >> > > > > > + if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "renesas,r9a07g043-plic")) {
> >> > > > > > + priv->of_data = RENESAS_R9A07G043_PLIC;
> >> > > > > > + plic_chip.name = "Renesas RZ/Five PLIC";
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > NAK. The irq_chip structure isn't the place for platform marketing.
> >> > > > > This is way too long anyway (and same for the edge version), and you
> >> > > > > even sent me a patch to make that structure const...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > My bad will drop this.
> >> > >
> >> > > And why you're at it, please turn this rather random 'of_data' into
> >> > > something like:
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> > > index bb87e4c3b88e..cd1683b77caf 100644
> >> > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> > > @@ -64,6 +64,10 @@ struct plic_priv {
> >> > > struct cpumask lmask;
> >> > > struct irq_domain *irqdomain;
> >> > > void __iomem *regs;
> >> > > + enum {
> >> > > + VANILLA_PLIC,
> >> > > + RENESAS_R9A07G043_PLIC,
> >> > > + } flavour;
> >> > > };
> >> > >
> >> > > struct plic_handler {
> >> > >
> >> > > to give some structure to the whole thing, because I'm pretty sure
> >> > > we'll see more braindead implementations as time goes by.
> >> >
> >> > What about using a feature flag (e.g. had_edge_irqs) instead?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> index 9f16833dcb41..247c3c98b655 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> @@ -60,13 +60,13 @@
> >> #define PLIC_DISABLE_THRESHOLD 0x7
> >> #define PLIC_ENABLE_THRESHOLD 0
> >>
> >> +#define PLIC_QUIRK_EDGE_INTERRUPT BIT(0)
> >>
> >> struct plic_priv {
> >> struct cpumask lmask;
> >> struct irq_domain *irqdomain;
> >> void __iomem *regs;
> >> + u32 plic_quirks;
> >> };
> >>
> >> What about something like above?
> >
> > LGTM.
> >
> > Marc suggested to make this unsigned long, but TBH, that won't make
> > much of a difference. PLICs are present on RV32 SoCs, too, so you
> > cannot rely on having more than 32 bits anyway.
>
> But it will make a difference on a 64bit platform, as we want to
> use test_bit() and co to check for features.
>
Ok will change that to unsigned long and use the test_bit/set_bit instead.

Cheers,
Prabhakar