On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 9:10 AM Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 5:42 AM Samuel Holland [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 8/22/22 10:29 AM, Jessica Clarke wrote:

quoted

On 22 Aug 2022, at 14:56, conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:

quoted

On 22/08/2022 13:31, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

quoted

Do you think this is worth doing? Or are you just providing an
example of what could be done?

Just some brainstorming...

quoted

Where would you envisage putting these macros? I forget the order
of the CPP operations that are done, can they be put in the dts?

The SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ() macro should be defined in the
ARM-based SoC.dtsi file and the RISC-V-based SoC.dtsi file.

Right, one level up but ~the same result.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Nice! But it's gonna be a very large interrupt-map.

I quite like the idea of not duplicating files across the archs
if it can be helped, but not at the expense of making them hard to
understand & I feel like unfortunately the large interrupt map is
in that territory.

I feel the same.
Even listing both interrupt numbers in SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(na, nr)
is a risk for making mistakes.

So personally, I'm in favor of teaching dtc arithmetic, so we can
handle the offset in SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ().

Yup, in the same boat here. mayb I'll get bored enough to bite..

Note that GPL’ed dtc isn’t the only implementation. FreeBSD uses a
BSD-licensed implementation[1] and so adding new features like this to
GPL dtc that actually get used would require us to reimplement it too.
I don’t know how much effort it would be but please keep this in mind.

I plan to go with the "SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(na, nr)" implementation for v2. I like
that it only affects the DT source, and does not leak into the DTB. We still
have the freedom to switch to using arithmetic later when all of the tools
support it.

May I suggest an alternative solution, which would be more generic,
and can be extended to other/more CPU cores easily:

Specify both interrupts in the .dtsi, but wrapped inside e.g. ARM()
resp. RISCV() macros:

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

The same construct can be used for e.g. interrupt-parent.
The ARM .dts would define:

    #define ARM(x...)    x
    #define RISCV(x....)

before including the .dtsi.
The RISC-V DTS would define instead:

    #define ARM(x...)
    #define RISCV(x...)    x

Cfr. the AR_CLASS(), M_CLASS(), ARM(), and THUMB() macros in
arch/arm/include/asm/unified.h.

I brought it up with the DT people in a separate thread[1].
Please continue the discussion there.
Thanks!

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAMuHMdUPm36RsxHdVwspR3NCAR3C507AyB6R65W42N2gXWq0ag@mail.gmail.com (local)

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