Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:31:11 -0700 | From | Lina Iyer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/7] dt-bindings: sdm845-pinctrl: add wakeup interrupt parent for GPIO |
| |
On Tue, Jan 08 2019 at 07:49 -0700, Rob Herring wrote: >On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 12:51 PM Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 28 2018 at 17:07 -0700, Rob Herring wrote: >> >On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Lina Iyer wrote: >> >> SDM845 SoC has an always-on interrupt controller (PDC) with select GPIO >> >> routed to the PDC as interrupts that can be used to wake the system up >> >> from deep low power modes and suspend. >> >> >> >> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org >> >> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> >> >> --- >> >> .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sdm845-pinctrl.txt | 7 ++++++- >> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sdm845-pinctrl.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sdm845-pinctrl.txt >> >> index 665aadb5ea28..a522ca46667d 100644 >> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sdm845-pinctrl.txt >> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sdm845-pinctrl.txt >> >> @@ -29,6 +29,11 @@ SDM845 platform. >> >> Definition: must be 2. Specifying the pin number and flags, as defined >> >> in <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h> >> >> >> >> +- wakeup-parent: >> >> + Usage: optional >> >> + Value type: <phandle> >> >> + Definition: A phandle to the wakeup interrupt controller for the SoC. >> > >> >Is this really necessary? Is there more than one possible wakeup-parent >> >node? >> > >> No. There is only one but depending on the architecture, the wakeup >> interrupt controller could be different device like PDC on SDM845 or MPM >> on SDM820. >> >> What do you have in mind? Let me know if you have a better idea than >> referencing in DT. > >If there's only one possibility for a given platform, then you can >just use of_find_compatible_node(). I don't think it matters that >different platforms have a different device here. It's not going to be >a large table and you may need to know the differences if there's not >an abstracted interface to it (seems there is in your case). The GPIO irqchip would be in hierarchy with the wakeup-parent irqchip and no device specific functions would be called directly. We could achieve this with compatible strings to the irqchip.
>Alternatively, if the PDC/MPM code knows what interrupt controller it >is associated with, then it could setup that relationship and the >interrupt controller code could retrieve that. Maybe the stacked >domain support doesn't work in that direction (I haven't looked at the >irq code much since that was added). > The PDC/MPM do not know about the association.
>However, my main concern is documenting something genericish in a >device specific binding. It looks like Tegra is trying to add the same >thing, so this needs to be documented in a common place. One question >is whether wakeup is the only use or if this should be more generally >a secondary interrupt parent? > Yes, wakeup is the only use of this interrupt parent. It is powered by an always-on rail and therefore can detect some interrupts that are routed to it even when the GIC is powered off. Though Tegra's implementation of the irqchip is a bit different from QCOM, the idea is generally the same. It would be helpful, if we could make this a generic enough binding.
-- Lina
| |