Hi Arnd,

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:30 AM Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022, at 11:20 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

On 2022-09-21 08:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

This is a topic that came up at the RISC-V BoF at Plumbers, and it was
suggested to bring it up with you.

The same SoC may be available with either RISC-V or other (e.g. ARM) CPU
cores (an example of this are the Renesas RZ/Five and RZ/G2UL SoCs).
To avoid duplication, we would like to have:
   - <riscv-soc>.dtsi includes <base-soc>.dtsi,
   - <arm-soc>.dtsi includes <base-soc>.dtsi.

Unfortunately RISC-V and ARM typically use different types of interrupt
controllers, using different bindings (e.g. 2-cell vs. 3-cell), and
possibly using different interrupt numbers.  Hence the interrupt-parent
and interrupts{-extended} properties should be different, too.

Possible solutions[1]:
   1. interrupt-map

   2. Use a SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ() macro in interrupts properties in
      <base-soc>.dtsi, with
        - #define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(nr, na) nr          // RISC-V
        - #define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(nr, na) GIC_SPI na  // ARM
      Note that the cpp/dtc combo does not support arithmetic, so even
      the simple case where nr = 32 + na cannot be simplified.

   3. Wrap inside RISCV() and ARM() macros, e.g.:

         RISCV(interrupts = <412 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;)
         ARM(interrupts = <GIC_SPI 380 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;)

      Cfr. ARM() and THUMB() in arch/arm/include/asm/unified.h, as used
      to express the same operation using plain ARM or ARM Thumb
      instructions.

4. Put all the "interrupts" properties in the SoC-specific DTSI at the
same level as the interrupt controller to which they correspond. Works
out of the box with no horrible mystery macros, and is really no more or
less error-prone than any other approach. Yes, it means replicating a
bit of structure and/or having labels for everything (many of which may
be wanted anyway), but that's not necessarily a bad thing for
readability anyway. Hierarchical definitions are standard FDT practice
and should be well understood, so this is arguably the simplest and
least surprising approach :)

FWIW, approaches 1, 2 and 4 all seem reasonable to me, but I don't
like number 3 if this is only about the IRQ definitions.

We also have to handle interrupt-parent at the /soc level.
And of course you never know what pops up next ;-)

It sounds like we're already converging on #2, so just one more
idea from me: we could fold the IRQ type into the macro, and
make it just take a single argument for extra flexibility:

#define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ_LEVEL_HIGH(nr) \
        GIC_SPI (nr + offset) IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH

If all the irqs on the chip have the same type, the name
can be shorter of course.

This is usually the case, but not always.
And the numbering may be the same (modulo the offset), but
not it really depends on the on-SoC wiring.

Either way, some variation of the macro sounds like a good enough
approach to me.

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel