[PATCH 2/3] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization

[Rob Herring]

On 06/13/2011 11:53 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:22:20AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>>
>> This adds gic initialization using device tree data. An example device tree
>> binding looks like this:
>>
>> intc: interrupt-controller at fff11000 {
>>         compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>>         #interrupt-cells = <1>;
>>         interrupt-controller;
>>         reg = <0xfff11000 0x1000>,
>>               <0xfff10100 0x100>;
>>         irq-start = <29>;
>> };
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/common/gic.c                         |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/include/asm/hardware/gic.h           |    1 +
>>  3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..491a503
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
>> +* ARM Generic Interrupt Controller
>> +
>> +Some ARM cores have an interrupt controller called GIC. The ARM GIC
>> +representation in the device tree should be done as under:-
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +
>> +- compatible : should be one of:
>> +	"arm,cortex-a9-gic"
>> +	"arm,arm11mp-gic"
>> +	"nvidia,tegra250-gic"
> 
> This doesn't match the implementation in this patch.  The
> implementation only matches against the cortex-a9 gic.
> 
I was just trying to make the doc somewhat complete although I'm missing
msm.

> Also, I expect that the gic is different between the arm,cortex-a9-gic
> and the arm,arm11-mp-gic.  Is the tegra also a different gic
> implementation?  Or can it be expected that the tegra gic will simply
> claim compatibility with the a9 gic?
> 
They are all using the same code today, so yes thay are all compatible.
I'm not even sure that tegra is different than standard A9. I pulled
that from your tree. There are some h/w differences in terms of
powergating of the GIC or not and when. How to handle that is still
being hashed out a bit.

>> +- interrupt-controller : Identifies the node as an interrupt controller
>> +- #interrupt-cells : Specifies the number of cells needed to encode an
>> +  interrupt source.  The type shall be a <u32> and the value shall be 1.
>> +- reg : Specifies base physical address(s) and size of the GIC registers. The
>> +  first 2 values are the GIC distributor register base and size. The 2nd 2
>> +  values are the GIC cpu interface register base and size.
>> +- irq-start : The first actual interrupt that is connected to h/w.
> 
> Drop irq-start.  That's a Linux internal implementation detail, and
> Linux can easily handle dynamic assignment of irq ranges.
> 
> If board support code still has special needs on specific platforms,
> then we can manually override the assigned range for that specific
> platform only as a short term workaround.
> 

It's really about skipping the SGI interrupts and unused PPIs which is
h/w specific. That isn't really necessary AFAICT, but I'm not too sure
why it was even done in the first place.

>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +intc: interrupt-controller at fff11000 {
>> +        compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>> +        #interrupt-cells = <1>;
>> +        interrupt-controller;
>> +        reg = <0xfff11000 0x1000>,
>> +              <0xfff10100 0x100>;
>> +        irq-start = <29>;
>> +};
>> +
>> +
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/gic.c b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
>> index 4ddd0a6..024414d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/common/gic.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
>> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@
>>  #include <linux/smp.h>
>>  #include <linux/cpumask.h>
>>  #include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>>  
>>  #include <asm/irq.h>
>>  #include <asm/mach/irq.h>
>> @@ -401,3 +403,37 @@ void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq)
>>  	writel_relaxed(map << 16 | irq, gic_data[0].dist_base + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
>>  }
>>  #endif
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
>> +static struct of_device_id gic_ids[] __initdata = {
>> +	{ .compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-gic" },
>> +};
>> +
>> +void __init gic_of_init(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct device_node *np;
>> +	void __iomem *cpu_base;
>> +	void __iomem *dist_base;
>> +	__u32 irq_start = 16;
>> +	const __be32 *val;
>> +
>> +	np = of_find_matching_node(NULL, gic_ids);
>> +	if (!np)
>> +		panic("unable to find compatible gic node in dtb\n");
>> +
>> +	dist_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
>> +	if (!dist_base)
>> +		panic("unable to map gic dist registers\n");
>> +
>> +	cpu_base = of_iomap(np, 1);
>> +	if (!cpu_base)
>> +		panic("unable to map gic cpu registers\n");
>> +
>> +	val = of_get_property(np, "irq-start", NULL);
>> +	if (val != NULL)
>> +		irq_start = of_read_ulong(val, 1);
>> +	of_node_put(np);
>> +
>> +	gic_init(0, irq_start, dist_base, cpu_base);
> 
> This can only handle a single gic in a system.  This is a start, but
> multiple interrupt controllers must be supported, like for the Samsung
> socs.

Huh? Only Realview boards have a 2nd level controller. The Samsung
boards are using the VIC. Are you referring to something not in mainline
yet?

> 
> I've been toying with writing some code that walks the interrupt
> controller tree, finds the root controller, and then sets up each
> child controller as a cascade.
> 

That would be interesting especially if gpio controllers were included.
It's probably overkill for just the few platforms that have multiple GICs.

Rob