From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754601AbcFPMkn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:40:43 -0400
Received: from smtpoutz28.laposte.net ([194.117.213.103]:39114 "EHLO
	smtp.laposte.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754119AbcFPMkl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:40:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Using irq-crossbar.c
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
References: <575ADEBA.2030202@laposte.net> <575AE52E.9020005@arm.com>
 <575ED54B.7080905@laposte.net> <575EDE48.6090006@arm.com>
 <576032D3.5050108@laposte.net> <5760332B.1060904@laposte.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TcOlbnMgUnVsbGfDpXJk?= <mans@mansr.com>
From: Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net>
Message-ID: <57629E1E.6080205@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:39:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5760332B.1060904@laposte.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-VR-SrcIP: 83.142.147.193
X-VR-FullState: 0
X-VR-Score: -100
X-VR-Cause-1: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeekledrkeekgdehhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhf
X-VR-Cause-2: ihhlvgemucfntefrqffuvffgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhs
X-VR-Cause-3: ucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtjegrtddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefu
X-VR-Cause-4: vggsrghsthhirghnucfhrhhirghsuceoshhfkeegsehlrghpohhsthgvrdhnvghtqeenucfkphepkeef
X-VR-Cause-5: rddugedvrddugeejrdduleefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhhvghloheplgdu
X-VR-Cause-6: jedvrddvjedrtddrvddugegnpdhinhgvthepkeefrddugedvrddugeejrdduleefpdhmrghilhhfrhho
X-VR-Cause-7: mhepshhfkeegsehlrghpohhsthgvrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgrrhgtrdiihihnghhivghrsegr
X-VR-Cause-8: rhhmrdgtohhm
X-VR-AvState: No
X-VR-State: 0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Marc,

On 06/14/2016 06:39 PM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> On 06/14/2016 06:37 PM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>>>> Also, without seeing the code,
>>>>> it is pretty difficult to make any meaningful comment...
>>>>
>>>> Base code is either 4.7rc1 or 4.4.
>>>> The irq-crossbar code is not much different from TI, but you can find it attached.
>>>
>>> Please post it separately (and inline), the email client I have here
>>> makes it hard to review attached patches.
>>
>> Ok, I'll post it in a separate email and inline.
>>
> 
> Here it goes:
> 
> 

 <snipped code>

> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(tangox_intc, "sigma,smp-irq-mux", tangox_of_irq_mux_init);
> 
> 

I have tested the code, and aside from the missing #interrupt-cells in the DT that you pointed out, it seems it is working (devices using IRQ appear functional), here's some log:

tangox_irq_mux_domain_translate(): domain 0xcf805000
tangox_irq_mux_domain_translate(): hwirq 1 (0x1) type 4 (0x4)
tangox_irq_mux_domain_alloc(): domain 0xcf805000, virq 18 (0x12) nr_irqs 1
tangox_allocate_gic_irq(): domain 0xcf805000, virq 18 (0x12) hwirq 1 (0x1)
tangox_setup_irq_route(): route irq  1 (@ 0xf006f804) => irq 23
tangox_irq_mux_domain_translate(): domain 0xcf805000
tangox_irq_mux_domain_translate(): hwirq 38 (0x26) type 4 (0x4)
tangox_irq_mux_domain_alloc(): domain 0xcf805000, virq 19 (0x13) nr_irqs 1
tangox_allocate_gic_irq(): domain 0xcf805000, virq 19 (0x13) hwirq 38 (0x26)
tangox_setup_irq_route(): route irq 38 (@ 0xf006f898) => irq 22
tangox_irq_mux_domain_translate(): domain 0xcf805000
tangox_irq_mux_domain_translate(): hwirq 67 (0x43) type 4 (0x4)
tangox_irq_mux_domain_alloc(): domain 0xcf805000, virq 20 (0x14) nr_irqs 1
tangox_allocate_gic_irq(): domain 0xcf805000, virq 20 (0x14) hwirq 67 (0x43)
tangox_setup_irq_route(): route irq 67 (@ 0xf006f90c) => irq 21

Since irq-tango_v2.c is similar to irq-crossbar.c from TI (since it is based on it), I was wondering what is the policy or recommendation in such cases?
Should I attempt to merge the code (mainly the way to set up the registers) on irq-crossbar.c or should we consider irq-tango_v2.c to live its own life?

NOTE: IMHO, irq-crossbar.c could benefit from clearer names for some DT properties, because "max_irqs" and "max-crossbar-sources" are not straight forward names for "mux_outputs" and "mux_inputs" (respectively)

NOTE2: current irq-tango_v2.c code still has a 24 IRQ limitation since it is not using any API that would allow it to setup IRQ sharing.

Thanks in advance.
Best regards,

Sebastian