Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1288139

Re: Generic DT binding for IPIs

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:50:35AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@imgtec.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 10/22/2015 12:55 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:44:16AM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything more I can do to get more attention about this? I
> >>> think Marc's suggestion is more generic and future proof, if I send
> >>> RFC patches for that would this be better?
> >>
> >> Please do.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to get around writing the patches yet.
> > I came up with a different description though that I thought maybe worth
> > sharing
> > to see if there's any opinion about it before the actual work being done.
> 
> I've not given this too much thought, but here's my initial thoughts.
> 
> >
> > To summarise, the problem I am trying to solve is that we have a type of
> > coprocessors which share the interrupt controller with Linux, hence the IPI
> > mechanism this controller uses. I've been working with Thomas on
> > implementing
> > a generic API to allocate IPIs for coprocesors and a way for drivers to send
> > these IPIs [1].
> >
> > To complement this new API, we need a mechanism to describe this in
> > device tree so a driver that wants to allocate an IPI can have this done
> > automatically for it like we handle interrupts.
> >
> > What I have in mind is:
> >
> >      coproc {
> >              ipi-parent = <&gic>;
> >
> >              ipis = <CPU_VALUE IPI_SPEC>;
> >              ipi-names = "in";
> >      };
> >
> > This will allocate an IPI to go to cpu @CPU_VALUE passing @IPI_SPEC as
> > parameters to the controller. Which means we need a new ipi-cells to
> > define how many cells are in ipis property. Note the new ipi-parent too.
> 
> These are still interrupts, so I'd prefer to use or extend the
> interrupt binding if possible.

I agree.  It should be possible to just describe these as interrupts,
with the interrupt-parent being a special interrupt controller node to
represent these IPIs.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Generic DT binding for IPIs Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@imgtec.com> - 2015-12-09 16:30 +0100
  Re: Generic DT binding for IPIs Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> - 2015-12-09 18:00 +0100
    Re: Generic DT binding for IPIs David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> - 2015-12-10 03:20 +0100
    Re: Generic DT binding for IPIs Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@imgtec.com> - 2015-12-10 11:30 +0100
      Re: Generic DT binding for IPIs David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> - 2015-12-11 03:40 +0100
        Re: Generic DT binding for IPIs Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@imgtec.com> - 2015-12-11 11:50 +0100

csiph-web