lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/4] DRIVERS: IRQCHIP: Add crossbar irqchip driver
Hi,

I have a few comments, mostly on the DT binding and parsing.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/omap/irq-crossbar.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/omap/irq-crossbar.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..5d465cf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/omap/irq-crossbar.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +* IRQ CROSSBAR
> +
> +Some socs have a large number of interrupts requests to service
> +the needs of its many peripherals and subsystems. All of the
> +interrupt lines from the subsystems are not needed at the same
> +time, so they have to be muxed to the irq-controller appropriately.
> +In such places a interrupt controllers are preceded by an CROSSBAR
> +that provides flexibility in muxing the device requests to the controller
> +inputs.
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible : Should be "irq-crossbar"

Missing vendor prefix, this should be something like "ti,irq-crossbar".
Does this have a more specific name than CROSSBAR that can be used to
qualify it?

> +- interrupt-parent: phandle to crossbar's interrupt parent.
> +- interrupt-controller: Identifies the node as an interrupt controller.
> +- interrupt-cells: Should be the same value as the interrupt parent.

That doesn't make sense. The crossbar driver is necessarily interpreting
these cells in a way the parent won't (as it supports more interrupts).
What are the meaning of these cells?

> +- reg: Base address and the size of the crossbar registers.
> +- max-crossbar-lines: Total number of input lines of the crossbar.
> +- max-irqs: Total number of irqs available at the interrupt controller.

Is this the maximum number of interrupts targeting the parent interrupt
controller? Starting at what number, ending at what number? Can this
have gaps?

Is this a shortcut so in the GIC case you don't have to describe up to
160 interrupts? I can see why you don't want to, but there's a big loss
of generality here...

> +- reg-size: size of the crossbar registers.

As in the size of all the registers (the size component of reg)?

Or is this the size of each individual register? Does that apply to all
registers or only a subset of them?

What units are these in, bytes?

What are valid sizes?

Is this really that configurable?

> +- irqs-reserved: List of the reserved irq lines that are not muxed using
> + crossbar. These interrupt lines are reserved in the soc,
> + so crossbar bar driver should not consider them as free
> + lines.

Are these reserved inputs lines, or outputs to the parent interrupt
controller?

What is the format of each entry in this list?

The example seems to be a different format to the parent interrupt
controller (which per your binding also defined the crossbar's interrupt
format). While <0 1 2> is a valid interrupt per the GIC binding (SPI 0
edge-triggered both ways), <3 5 6>, <131 132 139>, and <140 . .> are
not.

> +
> +Examples:
> + crossbar_mpu: @4a020000 {
> + compatible = "irq-crossbar";
> + interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
> + interrupt-controller;
> + #interrupt-cells = <3>;
> + reg = <0x4a002a48 0x130>;
> + max-crossbar-lines = <512>;
> + max-irqs = <160>;
> + reg-size = <2>;
> + irqs-reserved = <0 1 2 3 5 6 131 132 139 140>;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;

Why are there #address-cells and #size cells? This has no children, and
this affects any interrupt-map property (as the parent unit address now
must be a single cell, that isn't going to be used).

[...]

> +static int crossbar_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> + const struct cpumask *mask_val,
> + bool force)
> +{
> + struct irq_chip *chip;
> + struct irq_data *data;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + crossbar_to_irq_chip_data(d->hwirq, &chip, &data);
> +
> + if (chip->irq_set_affinity)
> + ret = chip->irq_set_affinity(data, mask_val, force);
> +
> + return ret;

So if our parent chip can't set affinity, we pretend it can?

irq_set_affinity in kernel/irq/manage.c returns -EINVAL if an irqchip
doesn't have irq_set_affinity.

> +/*
> + * Request and free are already called in atomic contexts
> + */
> +unsigned int crossbar_request_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> + int cb_no = d->hwirq;
> + int virq = allocate_free_irq(cb_no);
> + void *irq = &cb->crossbar_map[cb_no].hwirq;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = request_threaded_irq(virq, crossbar_irq, NULL,
> + 0, "CROSSBAR", irq);
> + if (err)
> + pr_err("\n request_irq failed for crossbar %d", cb_no);

Why does the print begin with a newline rather than ending with one?

> +
> + return 0;
> +}

[...]

> +static int crossbar_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
> + struct device_node *controller,
> + const u32 *intspec, unsigned int intsize,
> + unsigned long *out_hwirq,
> + unsigned int *out_type)
> +{
> + int i, cb_no;
> + u32 *cb_intspec = kzalloc(intsize * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + if (!cb_intspec)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cb_no = intspec[1];

So #interrupt-cells must be at least <2>. You should sanity check
intsize >= 2 before this line or you'll perform an illegal array access.

> +
> + if (WARN_ON(intsize < 1))
> + return -EINVAL;

This sanity check is both wrong and too late, as mentioned above.

> +
> + cb->crossbar_map[cb_no].intspec = cb_intspec;
> +
> + /*
> + * Free irq is allocated and mapped during request_irq
> + * So just save the interrupt properties here
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < intsize; i++)
> + cb->crossbar_map[cb_no].intspec[i] = intspec[i];
> +
> + cb->crossbar_map[cb_no].intspec_size = intsize;
> + *out_hwirq = intspec[1];
> + *out_type = IRQ_TYPE_NONE;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +const struct irq_domain_ops crossbar_domain_ops = {
> + .map = crossbar_domain_map,
> + .xlate = crossbar_domain_xlate
> +};
> +
> +static int __init crossbar_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> + struct device_node *parent)
> +{
> + int i, size, max, reserved = 0;
> + const __be32 *irqsr;
> +
> + if (!parent) {
> + pr_err("\n interrupt-parent is missing");

Another odd newline.

> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + cb = kzalloc(sizeof(struct cb_device *), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + if (!cb)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cb->irqp = parent;
> +
> + cb->crossbar_base = of_iomap(node, 0);
> + if (!cb->crossbar_base)
> + return -ENOMEM;

Leaking allocated cb here.

> +
> + of_property_read_u32(node, "max-crossbar-lines", &max);
> + cb->crossbar_map = kzalloc(max * sizeof(struct pirqs *), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + if (!cb->crossbar_map)
> + return -ENOMEM;

Leaking cb and cb->crossbar_base mapping.

> +
> + cb->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, max,
> + &crossbar_domain_ops, NULL);
> +
> + if (!cb->domain) {
> + pr_err("Couldn't register an IRQ domain\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }

Leaking cb, cb->crossbar_base, and cb->crossbar_map here.

> +
> + of_property_read_u32(node, "max-irqs", &max);
> + cb->irq_map = kzalloc(max * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cb->irq_map)
> + return -ENOMEM;

Leaking cb, cb->crossbar_base, cb->crossbar_map, and cb->domain.

> +
> + cb->int_max = max;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < max; i++)
> + cb->irq_map[i] = IRQ_FREE;
> +
> + /* Get and mark reserved irqs */
> + irqsr = of_get_property(node, "irqs-reserved", &size);
> + size /= sizeof(int);

The entries will be __be32, not int.

> +
> + for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
> + cb->irq_map[be32_to_cpup(irqsr + i)] = 0;

No sanity check on array bounds?

What about a dt that has something like:

irqs-reserved = <0x0 0xcccccccc 0xffffffff>;

It's clearly wrong, and we can detect that rather than bringing down the
kernel...

> +
> + cb->register_offsets = kzalloc(max * sizeof(int), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cb->register_offsets)
> + return -ENOMEM;

Leaking cb, cb->crossbar_base, cb->crossbar_map, cb->domain, and
cb->irq_map here.

> +
> + of_property_read_u32(node, "reg-size", &size);

Sanity check?

> +
> + /*
> + * Register offsets are not linear because of the
> + * reserved irqs. so find and store the offsets once.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < max; i++) {
> + if (!cb->irq_map[i])
> + continue;
> +
> + cb->register_offsets[i] = reserved;
> + reserved += size;
> + }
> +
> + switch (size) {
> + case 1:
> + cb->write = crossbar_writeb;
> + break;
> + case 2:
> + cb->write = crossbar_writew;
> + break;
> + case 4:
> + cb->write = crossbar_writel;
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;

Perform cleanup and return -EINVAL here?

> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(crossbar, "crossbar-irqchip", crossbar_of_init);
> --
> 1.7.9.5

Thanks,
Mark.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-20 11:21    [W:0.077 / U:1.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site