From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] of: platform: Skip mapping of interrupts in of_device_alloc()
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:07:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d290850bf95f4bdf0c329f278db458c7@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211209001056.29774-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
On 2021-12-09 00:10, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> of_device_alloc() in early boot stage creates a interrupt mapping if
> there exists a "interrupts" property in the node.
>
> For hierarchical interrupt domains using "interrupts" property in the
> node
> bypassed the hierarchical setup and messed up the irq setup.
>
> This patch adds a check in of_device_alloc() to skip interrupt mapping
> if
> "not-interrupt-producer" property is present in the node. This allows
> nodes to describe the interrupts using "interrupts" property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> ---
> Hi All,
>
> Spawning from discussion [1], here is simple patch (not the ideal
> probably
> welcome for suggestions) from stopping the OF code from creating a map
> for
> the interrupts when using "interrupts" property.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87pmqrck2m.wl-maz@kernel.org/
> T/#mbd1e47c1981082aded4b32a52e2c04291e515508
>
> Cheers,
> Prabhakar
> ---
> drivers/of/platform.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/platform.c b/drivers/of/platform.c
> index b3faf89744aa..629776ca1721 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/platform.c
> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ struct platform_device *of_device_alloc(struct
> device_node *np,
> struct device *parent)
> {
> struct platform_device *dev;
> - int rc, i, num_reg = 0, num_irq;
> + int rc, i, num_reg = 0, num_irq = 0;
> struct resource *res, temp_res;
>
> dev = platform_device_alloc("", PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE);
> @@ -124,7 +124,14 @@ struct platform_device *of_device_alloc(struct
> device_node *np,
> /* count the io and irq resources */
> while (of_address_to_resource(np, num_reg, &temp_res) == 0)
> num_reg++;
> - num_irq = of_irq_count(np);
> +
> + /*
> + * we don't want to map the interrupts of hierarchical interrupt
> domain
> + * into the parent domain yet. This will be the job of the
> hierarchical
> + * interrupt driver code to map the interrupts as and when needed.
> + */
> + if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "not-interrupt-producer"))
I don't think this is right. If anything, the expected behaviour should
be
indicated by the driver and not the device node.
> + num_irq = of_irq_count(np);
>
> /* Populate the resource table */
> if (num_irq || num_reg) {
> @@ -140,7 +147,7 @@ struct platform_device *of_device_alloc(struct
> device_node *np,
> rc = of_address_to_resource(np, i, res);
> WARN_ON(rc);
> }
> - if (of_irq_to_resource_table(np, res, num_irq) != num_irq)
> + if (num_irq && of_irq_to_resource_table(np, res, num_irq) !=
> num_irq)
> pr_debug("not all legacy IRQ resources mapped for %pOFn\n",
> np);
> }
The root of the issue is that all the resource allocation is done
upfront,
way before we even have a driver that could potentially deal with this
device. This is a potential waste of resource, and it triggers the
issue you noticed.
If you delay the resource allocation until there is an actual match with
a
driver, you could have a per-driver flag telling you whether the IRQ
allocation should be performed before the probe() function is called.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-09 8:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-09 0:10 [RFC PATCH] of: platform: Skip mapping of interrupts in of_device_alloc() Lad Prabhakar
2021-12-09 3:08 ` Rob Herring
2021-12-09 9:48 ` Lad, Prabhakar
2021-12-09 8:07 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2021-12-09 10:00 ` Lad, Prabhakar
2021-12-09 10:33 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-12-09 11:34 ` Lad, Prabhakar
2021-12-09 20:34 ` Rob Herring
2021-12-10 1:16 ` Lad, Prabhakar
2021-12-10 14:19 ` Rob Herring
2022-03-09 21:09 ` Lad, Prabhakar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d290850bf95f4bdf0c329f278db458c7@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com \
--cc=prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox