On Wednesday 08 January 2014 20:59:10 Thierry Reding wrote:

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:25:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 08 January 2014, Thierry Reding wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:11:08PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

The more I think about the iommu case, the more I am convinced that it
does belong into the core, in whatever form we can find. As far as I
can tell from the little reliable information I have on the topic, I
would assume that we can keep it in the DT probing code, as there won't
be a need for multiple arbitrary IOMMUs with ACPI or with board files.

I think part of the problem is that we don't have any DT probing code
yet. of_platform_probe() would have been that code. Perhaps if you weigh
in Grant and Greg will reconsider.

For all I know, we don't even have a binding proposal, but I may
have missed that.

quoted

Good point, I forgot about the special case for i2c_client->irq.
I looked now and noticed that very few i2c devices actually use this
field, but larger number uses platform_data, which has a similar
problem.

Yeah. It's kind of messy. The more I think about it, the more I begin to
like the lookup table option. One big advantage of that is that we could
actually unify much of the lookup code, much like we do for other types
of resources. It's a pattern that has worked fairly well in a number of
cases, so it seems natural to use it for interrupts as well.

An even more extreme option would be to go all the way and introduce
struct irq, along the same lines of the new struct gpiod. That would
allow nice things such as storing trigger types and such within the IRQ
handle and propagate them automatically.

We already have struct irq_desc, and I believe everybody who works
with interrupts supports migrating from irq number interfaces to
irq descriptors as soon as we can find someone willing to do that
work.
 

quoted

No trivial solution that I can see. I think we can deal with the case
where platform code uses platform_device->resources, and everything else
comes down to having multiple code branches in the driver, as we already
have to deal with platform_data and DT properties describing stuff that
doesn't fit in the resources.

That would be another argument in favour of the lookup table. It would
provide a unified mechanism to define static interrupts if no firmware
interface is available *independent* of the device type. You could have
something like:

	static const struct irq_lookup board_irq_lookup[] = {
		IRQ_LOOKUP("gpio", 0, "0-0040", NULL), /* I2C client via GPIO expander */
		IRQ_LOOKUP("intc", 0, "ehci.1", NULL), /* platform device via INTC */
	};

Along with:

	struct irq *irq_get(struct device *dev, const char *con_id);

To look it up via DT, ACPI, lookup table. That obviously means a more or
less complete change in how interrupts are handled in the kernel, and it
may not be worth it in the end.

It would certainly need a long migration period, and a plan for how to
get there without breaking things in the meantime. Rather than a lookup
table like the kind we have for clocks, I'd prefer a general way to
attach named properties to devices. My feeling is that building upon
devres would be a good plan, since it already provides a way to attach
arbitrary data to a device.

	Arnd

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html