Subject: [PATCH v2 1/9] irqchip: meson: add support for gpio interrupt controller

From: [email-masked] (Jerome Brunet)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:49:11 +0200

On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 17:33 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Jerome,
> 
> On 19/10/16 16:21, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > 
> > Add support for the interrupt gpio controller found on Amlogic's
> > meson
> > SoC family.
> > 
> > Unlike what the IP name suggest, it is not directly linked to the
> > gpio
> > subsystem. It is actually an independent IP that is able to spy on
> > the
> > SoC pad. For that purpose, it can mux and filter (edge or level and
> > polarity) any single SoC pad to one of the 8 GIC's interrupts it
> > owns.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> > ?drivers/irqchip/Kconfig??????????|???9 +
> > ?drivers/irqchip/Makefile?????????|???1 +
> > ?drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c | 423
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > ?3 files changed, 433 insertions(+)
> > ?create mode 100644 drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> > index 82b0b5daf3f5..168837263e80 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> > @@ -279,3 +279,12 @@ config EZNPS_GIC
> > ?config STM32_EXTI
> > ?	bool
> > ?	select IRQ_DOMAIN
> > +
> > +config MESON_GPIO_IRQ
> > +???????bool "Meson GPIO Interrupt Multiplexer"
> > +???????depends on ARCH_MESON || COMPILE_TEST
> > +???????select IRQ_DOMAIN
> > +???????select IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
> > +???????help
> > +?????????Support Meson SoC Family GPIO Interrupt Multiplexer
> > +
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
> > index e4dbfc85abdb..33f913d037d0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
> > @@ -74,3 +74,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LS_SCFG_MSI)		+= irq-
> > ls-scfg-msi.o
> > ?obj-$(CONFIG_EZNPS_GIC)			+= irq-eznps.o
> > ?obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ASPEED)		+= irq-aspeed-vic.o
> > ?obj-$(CONFIG_STM32_EXTI)?		+= irq-stm32-exti.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_MESON_GPIO_IRQ)		+= irq-meson-gpio.o
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
> > b/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..869b4df8c483
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2015 Endless Mobile, Inc.
> > + * Author: Carlo Caione <[email-masked]>
> > + * Copyright (c) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
> > + * Author: Jerome Brunet <[email-masked]>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > modify
> > + * it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public
> > License as
> > + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + *
> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > but
> > + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.??See the
> > GNU
> > + * General Public License for more details.
> > + *
> > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public
> > License
> > + * along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licens
> > es/>.
> > + * The full GNU General Public License is included in this
> > distribution
> > + * in the file called COPYING.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> > +
> > +#include <linux/io.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/irq.h>
> > +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> > +#include <linux/irqchip.h>
> > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> > +
> > +#define IRQ_FREE (-1)
> > +
> > +#define REG_EDGE_POL	0x00
> > +#define REG_PIN_03_SEL	0x04
> > +#define REG_PIN_47_SEL	0x08
> > +#define REG_FILTER_SEL	0x0c
> > +
> > +#define REG_EDGE_POL_MASK(x)	(BIT(x) | BIT(16 + (x)))
> > +#define REG_EDGE_POL_EDGE(x)	BIT(x)
> > +#define REG_EDGE_POL_LOW(x)	BIT(16 + (x))
> > +#define REG_PIN_SEL_SHIFT(x)	(((x) % 4) * 8)
> > +#define REG_FILTER_SEL_SHIFT(x)	((x) * 4)
> > +
> > +struct meson_gpio_irq_params {
> > +	unsigned int nhwirq;
> > +	irq_hw_number_t *source;
> > +	int nsource;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct meson_gpio_irq_domain {
> 
> The name of that structure is utterly confusing, as it doesn't
> contain
> anything related to an IRQ domain. Can you please clarify its usage?

This structure is holding the data of the controller. The name is
indeed misleading, I will change this. What about
'meson_gpio_irq_pdata' or 'meson_gpio_irq_controller' ?

> 
> > 
> > +	void __iomem *base;
> > +	int *map;
> > +	const struct meson_gpio_irq_params *params;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data {
> > +	void __iomem *base;
> > +	int index;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static irq_hw_number_t meson_parent_hwirqs[] = {
> > +	64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
> > +};
> 
> If that a guarantee that these numbers will always represent the
> parent interrupt?

At the moment, the 3 supported SoC use these parent interrupts, but we
have absolutely no idea (or guarantee) that is will remain the same, or
even contiguous, in the upcoming SoC (like the GXM or GXL)

I reckon, it is likely that manufacturer will keep on using these
parent irqs for a while but I would prefer not make an assumption about
it in the driver.

If a SoC get a different set of interrupts I would have added a new
table like this and passed it to the appropriate params :

static irq_hw_number_t meson_new_parent_hwirqs[] = {
	143, 144, 150, 151, 152, 173, 178, 179,
};

> It feels a bit odd not to get that information directly from
> the device tree, in the form of a device specific property. Something
> like:
> 
> 	upstream-interrupts = <64 65 66 ... >;
> 

I wondered about putting this information in DT or in the driver for a
while. Maybe DT would be a more suitable place holder for these data
(parent irq and number of provided hwirq) but I was under the
understanding that we should now put these information in the driver
and use the compatible property to get the appropriate parameters.

I'd love to get the view of the DT guys on this.

Also, since we already need to put some information about the pin the
pinctrl driver (to get the appropriate mux value of each pad), I
thought It would make sense to have the same approach here.

If there is some kind of policy saying this should be in DT, I'd be
happy to make the change.

> or even as a base/range:
> 
> 	upstream-interrupts = <64 8>;

I would prefer to avoid using ranges as we have no guarantee the
manufacturer will keep the parent irqs contiguous in the future.

> 
> Also, how does it work if you have more than a single device like
> this?
> This driver seems a do a great deal of dynamic allocation, and yet
> its
> core resource is completely static... Please pick a side! ;-)

I don't think we could have more than one instance per device and I
certainly did not have this case in mind while writing the code. If it
was the case someday, I guess having two compatibles would do the trick
:)

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson8_params = {
> > +	.nhwirq??= 134,
> > +	.source??= meson_parent_hwirqs,
> > +	.nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
> 
> I find it utterly confusing that you are calling source something
> that is an output for this controller. 

I had the call sequence (GIC->GPIO_IRQ->handler) in mind while writing
it. I see your point and it is indeed confusing, I'll find something
better

> It makes my brain melt, and I don't like the feeling.

Ohhhh !! it's Halloween season and you don't need a costume anymore ;)

> 
> > 
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson8b_params = {
> > +	.nhwirq??= 119,
> > +	.source??= meson_parent_hwirqs,
> > +	.nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson_gxbb_params = {
> > +	.nhwirq??= 133,
> > +	.source??= meson_parent_hwirqs,
> > +	.nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
> > +};
> 
> Same thing. How big is the variability of these structures? Are we
> going to see more of those? or is that now set into stone?

The number of pad mapped to the controller seems to change with every
SoC version. The parent irqs have not changed so far, but as explained
above, there is no guarantee it will keep on being this way.

So i'd say probably more of those ...

> 
> +Mark: what's the policy to describe this kind of things?

Very interested about this question as well.

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id meson_irq_gpio_matches[] = {
> > +	{
> > +		.compatible = "amlogic,meson8-gpio-intc",
> 
> If it's an independent IP (as described in the commit message),
> shouldn't in be rescribed in a more SoC-independent way?

Ok, I was probably not very clear (again). What I meant in the cover
letter is that the interrupt gpio controller is independent for the
pad/gpio controller. For example, it could work even you did not setup
anything in pinmux or you did not instantiate pinctrl at all.

But, at least from my point of view, it is SoC dependent since the
number of pad routed to it is changing with every SoC version.

> 
> > 
> > +		.data = &meson8_params
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +		.compatible = "amlogic,meson8b-gpio-intc",
> > +		.data = &meson8b_params
> > +	},
> > +	{
> > +		.compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-gpio-intc",
> > +		.data = &meson_gxbb_params
> > +	},
> > +	{}
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void meson_gpio_irq_update_bits(void __iomem *base,
> > unsigned int reg,
> > +				???????u32 mask, u32 val)
> > +{
> > +	u32 tmp;
> > +
> > +	tmp = readl(base + reg);
> > +	tmp &= ~mask;
> > +	tmp |= val;
> > +
> > +	writel(tmp, base + reg);
> 
> Can't you use the relaxed accessors?

Indeed, this will be fixed.

> 
> > 
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int meson_gpio_irq_get_index(struct meson_gpio_irq_domain
> > *domain_data,
> > +				????int hwirq)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < domain_data->params->nsource; i++) {
> > +		if (domain_data->map[i] == hwirq)
> > +			return i;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return -1;
> 
> I'm a bit worried by this function. If you need an allocator, then
> having a simple bitmap is much better than iterating over an array.
> 
> If you're using this to go from a hwirq to the structure describing
> your
> interrupt, this is wrong. You should never have to look-up something
> based on a hwirq, because that's what irq domains are for.

OK

> 
> > 
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mesion_gpio_irq_map_source(struct meson_gpio_irq_domain
> > *domain_data,
> > +				??????irq_hw_number_t hwirq,
> > +				??????irq_hw_number_t *source)
> > +{
> > +	int index;
> > +	unsigned int reg;
> > +
> > +	index = meson_gpio_irq_get_index(domain_data, IRQ_FREE);
> 
> So assuming you turn this into a proper bitmap driven allocator...
> 
> > 
> > +	if (index < 0) {
> > +		pr_err("No irq available\n");
> > +		return -ENOSPC;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	domain_data->map[index] = hwirq;
> 
> this can go away, as there is hardly any point in tracking the hwirq
> on
> its own. Actually, the whole map[] array looks totally useless.
> 
> > 
> > +
> > +	reg = (index < 4) ? REG_PIN_03_SEL : REG_PIN_47_SEL;
> > +	meson_gpio_irq_update_bits(domain_data->base, reg,
> > +				???0xff <<
> > REG_PIN_SEL_SHIFT(index),
> > +				???hwirq <<
> > REG_PIN_SEL_SHIFT(index));
> > +
> > +	*source = domain_data->params->source[index];
> > +
> > +	pr_debug("hwirq %lu assigned to channel %d - source
> > %lu\n",
> > +		?hwirq, index, *source);
> > +
> > +	return index;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int meson_gpio_irq_type_setup(unsigned int type, void
> > __iomem *base,
> > +				?????int index)
> > +{
> > +	u32 val = 0;
> > +
> > +	type &= IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> > +
> > +	if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (type & (IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING))
> > +		val |= REG_EDGE_POL_EDGE(index);
> > +
> > +	if (type & (IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING))
> > +		val |= REG_EDGE_POL_LOW(index);
> > +
> > +	meson_gpio_irq_update_bits(base, REG_EDGE_POL,
> > +				???REG_EDGE_POL_MASK(index), val);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static unsigned int meson_gpio_irq_type_output(unsigned int type)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int sense = type & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> > +
> > +	type &= ~IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	?* If the polarity of interrupt is low, the controller
> > will
> > +	?* invert the signal for gic
> > +	?*/
> > +	if (sense & (IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW))
> > +		type |= IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH;
> > +	else if (sense & (IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING |
> > IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING))
> > +		type |= IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING;
> > +
> > +	return type;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int meson_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data, unsigned
> > int type)
> > +{
> > +	struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data *cd =
> > irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	pr_debug("set type of hwirq %lu to %u\n", data->hwirq,
> > type);
> > +
> > +	ret = meson_gpio_irq_type_setup(type, cd->base, cd-
> > >index);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	return irq_chip_set_type_parent(data,
> > +					meson_gpio_irq_type_output
> > (type));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct irq_chip meson_gpio_irq_chip = {
> > +	.name			= "meson-gpio-irqchip",
> > +	.irq_mask		= irq_chip_mask_parent,
> > +	.irq_unmask		= irq_chip_unmask_parent,
> > +	.irq_eoi		= irq_chip_eoi_parent,
> > +	.irq_set_type		= meson_gpio_irq_set_type,
> > +	.irq_retrigger		=
> > irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy,
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +	.irq_set_affinity	= irq_chip_set_affinity_parent,
> > +#endif
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int meson_gpio_irq_domain_translate(struct irq_domain
> > *domain,
> > +					???struct irq_fwspec
> > *fwspec,
> > +					???unsigned long *hwirq,
> > +					???unsigned int *type)
> > +{
> > +	if (is_of_node(fwspec->fwnode)) {
> > +		if (fwspec->param_count != 2)
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> 
> You can write this as:
> 
> 	if (is_of_node() && fwspec->... == 2) {

OK

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +		*hwirq	= fwspec->param[0];
> > +		*type	= fwspec->param[1];
> > +
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int meson_gpio_irq_allocate_gic_irq(struct irq_domain
> > *domain,
> > +					???unsigned int virq,
> > +					???irq_hw_number_t source,
> > +					???unsigned int type)
> > +{
> > +	struct irq_fwspec fwspec;
> > +
> > +	if (!irq_domain_get_of_node(domain->parent))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> How can you end-up here if the translate operation has failed?

You can't, will be removed

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +	fwspec.fwnode = domain->parent->fwnode;
> > +	fwspec.param_count = 3;
> > +	fwspec.param[0] = 0;	/* SPI */
> > +	fwspec.param[1] = source;
> > +	fwspec.param[2] = meson_gpio_irq_type_output(type);
> > +
> > +	return irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent(domain, virq, 1,
> > &fwspec);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int meson_gpio_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain,
> > +				???????unsigned int virq,
> > +				???????unsigned int nr_irqs,
> > +				???????void *data)
> > +{
> > +	struct irq_fwspec *fwspec = data;
> > +	struct meson_gpio_irq_domain *domain_data = domain-
> > >host_data;
> > +	struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data *cd;
> > +	unsigned long hwirq, source;
> > +	unsigned int type;
> > +	int i, index, ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = meson_gpio_irq_domain_translate(domain, fwspec,
> > &hwirq, &type);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	pr_debug("irq %d, nr_irqs %d, hwirqs %lu\n", virq,
> > nr_irqs, hwirq);
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
> 
> This is a pattern that gets repeated over and over, for no good
> reason.
> The only reason we have this nr_irqs thing is to handle things like
> multi-MSI, where we have to *guarantee* that the hwirqs are allocated
> in
> a contiguous manner.
> 
> Here, you don't enforce that guarantee, so you'd rather have a big
> fat:
> 
> 	if (WARN_ON(nr_irqs != 1))
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 
> and get rid of that loop, because I cannot imagine a case where you'd
> allocate more than a single interrupt at a time.

Thanks for this clarification. I was actually very confused about
getting a single fwspec and this 'nr_irqs' parameters. I could not
figure a case where one would want multiple irqs in one call, and
looking at the other irqchip drivers did not really help. In the end, I
tried to implement the API the best I could, thinking that somebody
probably had a very good reason for this.

I'm perfectly happy using your solution, it makes more sense.

> 
> > 
> > +		index = mesion_gpio_irq_map_source(domain_data,
> > hwirq + i,
> > +						???&source);
> > +		if (index < 0)
> > +			return index;
> > +
> > +		ret = meson_gpio_irq_type_setup(type, domain_data-
> > >base,
> > +						index);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> 
> Why do you have to to this here? This should be handled by the core
> code already.

OK

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +		cd = kzalloc(sizeof(*cd), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		if (!cd)
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +		cd->base = domain_data->base;
> > +		cd->index = index;
> 
> So what is the exact purpose of this structure? The base address is
> essentially a global, or could be directly derived from the domain.
> The
> index is only used in set_type, and is the index of the pin connected
> to
> the GIC. It looks to me like you could have:
> 
> 		irq_hw_number_t *out_line =
> &meson_parent_hwirqs[index];

meson_parent_hwirq is only declared this way to avoid writing the
parent irqs 3 times (in each SoC params).?
Using it this way would make it global and imply it is the same
whatever the SoC. This something I can't guarantee and I would prefer
to avoid that.

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +		irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq + i,
> > hwirq + i,
> > +					??????&meson_gpio_irq_chip
> > , cd);
> 
> and this written as
> 
> 		irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq, hwirq,
> 					??????out_line);
> 
> In your set_type function, you just compute the index back:
> 
> 	irq_hw_number_t *out_line = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> 	irq_hw_number_t index = out_line - meson_parent_hwirqs;
> 
> and you're done.
> 

Since I can derive the base address, I only need the index in set_type.
I'll rework this to get rid of this structure.

> > 
> > +
> > +		ret = meson_gpio_irq_allocate_gic_irq(domain, virq
> > + i,
> > +						??????source,
> > type);
> 
> Resource leak on error.

Ok, Thx.

> 
> > 
> > +		if (ret < 0)
> > +			return ret;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void meson_gpio_irq_domain_free(struct irq_domain *domain,
> > +				???????unsigned int virq,
> > +				???????unsigned int nr_irqs)
> > +{
> > +	struct meson_gpio_irq_domain *domain_data = domain-
> > >host_data;
> > +	struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data *cd;
> > +	struct irq_data *irq_data;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
> 
> Same comment as above.

OK

> 
> > 
> > +		irq_data = irq_domain_get_irq_data(domain, virq +
> > i);
> > +		cd = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(irq_data);
> > +
> > +		domain_data->map[cd->index] = IRQ_FREE;
> > +		kfree(cd);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	irq_domain_free_irqs_parent(domain, virq, nr_irqs);
> > +
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct irq_domain_ops meson_gpio_irq_domain_ops = {
> > +	.alloc		= meson_gpio_irq_domain_alloc,
> > +	.free		= meson_gpio_irq_domain_free,
> > +	.translate	= meson_gpio_irq_domain_translate,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int __init
> > +meson_gpio_irq_init_domain(struct device_node *node,
> > +			???struct meson_gpio_irq_domain
> > *domain_data,
> > +			???const struct meson_gpio_irq_params
> > *params)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +	int nsource = params->nsource;
> > +	int *map;
> > +
> > +	map = kcalloc(nsource, sizeof(*map), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!map)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nsource; i++)
> > +		map[i] = IRQ_FREE;
> > +
> > +	domain_data->map = map;
> 
> You should now be able to kill most or all of this.
> 
> > 
> > +	domain_data->params = params;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int __init meson_gpio_irq_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> > +					?struct device_node
> > *parent)
> > +{
> > +	struct irq_domain *domain, *parent_domain;
> > +	const struct of_device_id *match;
> > +	const struct meson_gpio_irq_params *params;
> > +	struct meson_gpio_irq_domain *domain_data;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	match = of_match_node(meson_irq_gpio_matches, node);
> > +	if (!match)
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	params = match->data;
> > +
> > +	if (!parent) {
> > +		pr_err("missing parent interrupt node\n");
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	parent_domain = irq_find_host(parent);
> > +	if (!parent_domain) {
> > +		pr_err("unable to obtain parent domain\n");
> > +		return -ENXIO;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	domain_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*domain_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!domain_data)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	domain_data->base = of_iomap(node, 0);
> > +	if (!domain_data->base) {
> > +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +		goto out_free_dev;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ret = meson_gpio_irq_init_domain(node, domain_data,
> > params);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		goto out_free_dev_content;
> > +
> > +	domain = irq_domain_add_hierarchy(parent_domain, 0,
> > params->nhwirq,
> > +					??node,
> > &meson_gpio_irq_domain_ops,
> > +					??domain_data);
> 
> Please be consistent in using the fwnode API instead of the of_node
> one.

OK

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +	if (!domain) {
> > +		pr_err("failed to allocated domain\n");
> > +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +		goto out_free_dev_content;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	pr_info("%d to %d gpio interrupt mux initialized\n",
> > +		params->nhwirq, params->nsource);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +
> > +out_free_dev_content:
> > +	kfree(domain_data->map);
> > +	iounmap(domain_data->base);
> > +
> > +out_free_dev:
> > +	kfree(domain_data);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(meson8_gpio_intc, "amlogic,meson8-gpio-intc",
> > +		meson_gpio_irq_of_init);
> > +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(meson8b_gpio_intc, "amlogic,meson8b-gpio-intc",
> > +		meson_gpio_irq_of_init);
> > +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(gxbb_gpio_intc, "amlogic,meson-gxbb-gpio-intc",
> > +		meson_gpio_irq_of_init);
> > 
> 
> Overall, this driver is a bit of a mess. Tons of structures that
> don't
> make much sense, and a false sense of being able to support multiple
> instances of the device.
> 
> I'll let Mark comment on the DT side of things.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.