Re: [PATCH 05/19] irqchip/mmp: do not use of_address_to_resource() to get mux regs
From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk>
Date: 2019-08-16 18:41:34
Also in:
linux-clk, linux-devicetree, lkml
On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 13:12 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 09/08/2019 10:31, Lubomir Rintel wrote:quoted
The "regs" property of the "mrvl,mmp2-mux-intc" devices are silly. They are offsets from intc's base, not addresses on the parent bus. At this point it probably can't be fixed. On an OLPC XO-1.75 machine, the muxes are children of the intc, not the axi bus, and thus of_address_to_resource() won't work. We should treat the values as mere integers as opposed to bus addresses. Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@v3.sk> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <redacted> --- drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c | 20 +++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c index 14618dc0bd396..af9cba4a51c2e 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mmp.c@@ -424,9 +424,9 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(mmp2_intc, "mrvl,mmp2-intc", mmp2_of_init); static int __init mmp2_mux_of_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent) { - struct resource res; int i, ret, irq, j = 0; u32 nr_irqs, mfp_irq; + u32 reg[4]; if (!parent) return -ENODEV;@@ -438,18 +438,20 @@ static int __init mmp2_mux_of_init(struct device_node *node, pr_err("Not found mrvl,intc-nr-irqs property\n"); return -EINVAL; } - ret = of_address_to_resource(node, 0, &res); + + /* + * For historical reasonsm, the "regs" property of the + * mrvl,mmp2-mux-intc is not a regular * "regs" property containing + * addresses on the parent bus, but offsets from the intc's base. + * That is why we can't use of_address_to_resource() here. + */ + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(node, "reg", reg, ARRAY_SIZE(reg));This will return 0 even if you've read less than your expected 4 u32s. You may want to try of_property_read_variable_u32_array instead.
Will it? Unless I'm reading the of_property_read_u32_array() documentation wrong, it suggests that would return -EOVERFLOW in that case. It ignores the extra values it the property is larger. I guess that is not a good thing and we still want to use of_property_read_variable_u32_array() though.
quoted
if (ret < 0) { pr_err("Not found reg property\n"); return -EINVAL; } - icu_data[i].reg_status = mmp_icu_base + res.start; - ret = of_address_to_resource(node, 1, &res); - if (ret < 0) { - pr_err("Not found reg property\n"); - return -EINVAL; - } - icu_data[i].reg_mask = mmp_icu_base + res.start; + icu_data[i].reg_status = mmp_icu_base + reg[0]; + icu_data[i].reg_mask = mmp_icu_base + reg[2]; icu_data[i].cascade_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0); if (!icu_data[i].cascade_irq) return -EINVAL;Thanks, M.
Thanks Lubo _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel