On Tuesday 26 March 2013, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

I've tried to explain that in the commit log of PATCH 6, which says:

    However, we need the driver to expose two different IRQ domains: one
    for the main interrupt controller itself, and one for the MSI
    interrupt controller. In order to achieve this, we will create two
    subnodes in the interrupt-controller at d0020000 node: one subnode for
    the main interrupt controller, and one subnode for the MSI interrupt
    controller. The two irq domains can't be registered on the same DT
    node, otherwise when irq_find_host() gets used by of_irq_map_one()
    to resolve IRQs of devices, they may find the MSI interrupt
    controller instead of the main interrupt controller.

Right, I should have read the commit log better ...

    Note that both the parent and the child node need to have the
    'interrupt-controller' empty property:
    
      * The interrupt-controller property is needed in the main
    interrupt controller node (interrupt-controller at d0020000) because
    the of_irq_init() function skips nodes that are matching the given
       compatible string, but that don't have the interrupt-controller
       property.
    
     * The interrupt-controller property is needed in the child
    interrupt controller node (main-intc at d0020000) otherwise the
    resolution done by of_irq_map_one() doesn't work.

If you add compatible properties to the children, that would work
I suppose.

So really, the thing is that irq_domain_add_linear() registers an IRQ
domain on a specific DT node, and then irq_find_host() finds back an
IRQ domain from a given DT node. So if you have two IRQ domains
registered on the same DT node, then you don't know which one will be
used.

So if I do the two irq_domain_add_linear() (one for MPIC, one for MSI)
on one single DT node, when the timer driver will request its
interrupt, it turns out that the MSI IRQ domain is used and not the
MPIC IRQ domain, even though the timer has <&mpic> as its interrupt
parent.

I still wonder if the real solution shouldn't instead be to make the
irq domain code MSI aware. For instance, you don't really need a
cell to describe an interrupt because the interrupt number is
not a hardware property. So an MSI using device doesn't really
needs an "msis" or "interrupts" property, just an "msi-parent",
and we can add code to handle as a separate domain even if you
have a single device node that can do both level and message
interrupts.

	Arnd