Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] dt-bindings: irqchip: Introduce TISCI Interrupt router bindings

From: Tony Lindgren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:46:12 -0800

* Lokesh Vutla <[email-masked]> [190214 17:32]:
> Hi Tony,
> 	Please do not snip the on going discussion.
> 
> On 2/14/2019 9:11 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Lokesh Vutla <[email-masked]> [190214 08:39]:
> >> IMHO, device ids are something which can be used in DT. There are many other
> >> things like the interrupt ranges etc.. which are discoverable from sysfw and we
> >> are implementing it.
> > 
> > We need to describe hardware in the device tree, not firmware.
> > 
> > If you have something discoverable from the firmware, you should
> > have the device driver query it from sysfw based on a hardware
> > property, not based on some invented enumeration in the firmware.
> 
> Yes we are already querying sysfw for all the irq ranges that can be
> discoverable. The topic of discussion here is about the parent interrupt
> controller id. I am not sure how you are expecting an id be discoverable
> from system firmware especially with a name.

Well names are quite standard in dts (but should be used with
the phandle + offset). Think for example interrupt-names and
reg-names :)

> > If there is some device to firmware translation needed, hide that
> > into the device driver and keep it out of the device tree.
> 
> If preferred this can be moved to of_match_data attached to each
> compatible property. Then for each SoC a new compatible needs to be created.

Hiding the ID into the device driver and compatible property
makes sense to me if the id is based on SoC + firmware.

But I'd rather have a proper hardware based phandle + index
type mapping in the dts if possible though.

What does this id really consist of?

Regards,

Tony

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel