[PATCH] gpio: Describe interrupt-controller binding

[Rob Herring]

On 09/18/2012 01:45 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:15:02PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/18/2012 12:06 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:55:40AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 09/18/2012 07:28 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On 09/18/2012 03:51 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>>> In order to use GPIO controllers as interrupt controllers,
>>>>>> they need to be marked with the DT interrupt-controller
>>>>>> property. This commit adds some documentation about this to
>>>>>> the general GPIO binding document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at stericsson.com> Cc: Grant
>>>>>> Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> Cc: Rob Herring
>>>>>> <rob.herring at calxeda.com> Cc:
>>>>>> devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org Cc:
>>>>>> linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding
>>>>>> <thierry.reding at avionic-design.de>
>>>>>
>>>>> Applied for 3.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt | 33
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt
>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt index
>>>>>> 4e16ba4..8d125b0 100644 ---
>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt +++
>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt @@ -75,4
>>>>>> +75,37 @@ Example of two SOC GPIO banks defined as
>>>>>> gpio-controller nodes: gpio-controller; };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +If the GPIO controller supports the generation of
>>>>>> interrupts, it should +also contain an empty
>>>>>> "interrupt-controller" property as well as an 
>>>>>> +"#interrupt-cells" property. This is required in order for
>>>>>> other nodes +to use the GPIO controller as their interrupt
>>>>>> parent.
>>>>
>>>> Surely this is generic information for any interrupt controller,
>>>> and hence doesn't belong in the GPIO binding?
>>>
>>> LinusW requested this in order to avoid having to list these
>>> properties in every GPIO controller.
>>
>> There's no need to list this property in an individual GPIO
>> controller's binding either; it's a standard property for any
>> interrupt controller of any type.
>>
>>> I suppose that having it in an extra binding for interrupt
>>> controllers might make sense as well, but in that case we should
>>> probably provide a reference because the GPIO binding is where 
>>> people are most likely to look for this information.
>>
>> Yes, we probably should have a centralized .txt for the base interrupt
>> controller properties. I guess we don't today because it's probably so
>> old everyone assumes it.
> 
> Since each driver binding still needs to document it and in order to
> avoid needless duplication I think having a central location for this
> makes a lot of sense.
> 
>> For some other patches I sent, I created
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/ - a file in
>> that directory would make sense (bike-shedding: irq.txt, interrupts.txt?)
>>
>> Yes, each individual GPIO binding (that actually is an interrupt
>> controller; some may not be) should probably mention this and refer to
>> whatever documents the interrupt controller properties.
> 
> Okay. So how about I add a file interrupts.txt in that directory and put
> something like what this patch contains into it? Then I can just add a
> reference to the driver binding that the controller can be used as an
> interrupt-controller and that a description can be find in this new
> document.
> 
>>> There is Documentation/devicetree/bindings/open-pic.txt, which
>>> already lists most of this information, so maybe a reference to
>>> that document will do just as well?
>>
>> I think that's just one random interrupt controller. The common/core
>> properties probably should be separated out.
>>
>>>>>> +If #interrupt-cells is 1, the single cell is used to specify
>>>>>> the number +of the GPIO that is to be used as an interrupt. 
>>>>>> + +If #interrupt-cells is 2, the first cell is used to
>>>>>> specify the number +of the GPIO that is to be used as an
>>>>>> interrupt, whereas the second cell +is used to specify any of
>>>>>> the following flags: +  - bits[3:0] trigger type and level
>>>>>> flags +      1 = low-to-high edge triggered +      2 =
>>>>>> high-to-low edge triggered +      4 = active high
>>>>>> level-sensitive +      8 = active low level-sensitive
>>>>
>>>> That certainly shouldn't be in the generic GPIO binding; the
>>>> format of the interrupt specifier is determined by the binding
>>>> for the individual device that is the interrupt controller. Just
>>>> because a device is also a GPIO controller doesn't mean that it
>>>> has to conform to a specific format for the interrupt specifier.
>>>
>>> I think it does make sense to provide a description of the most
>>> commonly used variants. The above certainly is what the majority is
>>> using and many of those that do not use one of the predefined
>>> irq_domain_xlate_*() functions reimplement them with some
>>> additional checks or conversions.
>>
>> OK, but the document can't say "this is how the IRQ specifier is
>> formatted", when it clearly isn't generally true.
>>
>> The document should say that the format of the IRQ specifier is
>> entirely determined by the individual binding, but that bindings may
>> often choose to re-use the following common format. Each individual
>> binding would then need to document whether it did choose to use that
>> common format, or whether it instead chose something custom.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense.
> 
> Rob, given the above discussion I think it'd be better if I followed up
> with a patch that moves this description into a more generic location
> and we removed this patch.

Yes, agreed.

Rob