Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:13:52 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: drop quirk for two-cell variant |
| |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 12:38:56 +0000, Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me> wrote: > > 在 2022-11-22星期二的 17:28 +0000,Marc Zyngier写道: > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:20:26 +0000, > > Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me> wrote: > > > > > > As the special handling of edge-triggered interrupts are defined in > > > the > > > PLIC spec, we can assume it's not a quirk, but a feature of the > > > PLIC > > > spec; thus making it a quirk and use quirk-based codepath is not so > > > necessary. > > > > It *is* necessary. > > > > > > > > Move to a #interrupt-cells-based practice which will allow both > > > device > > > trees without interrupt flags and with interrupt flags work for all > > > compatible strings. > > > > No. You're tying together two unrelated concepts: > > > > - Edges get dropped in some implementations (and only some). You can > > argue that the architecture allows it, but I see it is an > > implementation bug. > > As the specification allows it, it's not an implementation bug -- and > for those which do not show this problem, it's possible that it's just > all using the same trigger type (e.g. Rocket).
What are you against? The fact that this is flagged as a quirk? Honestly, I don't care about that. If we can fold all implementations into the same scheme, that's fine by me.
> > > > > - The need for expressing additional information in the interrupt > > specifier is not necessarily related to the above. Other interrupt > > controllers use extra cells to encode the interrupt affinity, for > > example. > > I think in these situations, if the interrupt controller does not > contain any special handling for edge interrupts, we can just describe > them as level ones in SW.
No, that's utterly wrong. We don't describe an edge as level. Ever.
> > > > > I want these two things to be kept separate. Otherwise, once we get > > some fancy ACPI support for RISCV (no, please...), we'll have to redo > > the whole thing... > > > > > In addition, this addresses a stable version DT binding violation - > > > - > > > Linux v5.19 comes with "thead,c900-plic" with #interrupt-cells > > > defined to > > > be 1 instead of 2, this commit will allow DTs that complies to > > > Linux > > > v5.19 binding work (although no such DT is devliered to the public > > > now). > > > > *That* is what should get fixed. > > Supporting all stable versions' DT binding is our promise, I think.
Absolutely. And I'm asking you to fix it. And only that.
Thanks,
M.
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |