Hi Rob,
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:47:33 -0500
Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > +
> > > > +static int irqmux_imap_cb(void *data, const __be32 *imap,
> > > > + const struct of_phandle_args *parent_args)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct irqmux_cb_data *priv = data;
> > > > + u32 src_hwirq;
> > > > + int index;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * The child #address-cells is 0. Already checked in irqmux_setup().
> > > > + * The first value in imap is the src_hwirq
> > > > + */
> > > > + src_hwirq = be32_to_cpu(*imap);
> > >
> > > The iterator should take care of the endianness conversion.
> >
> > Ok, it will take care.
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Get the index in our interrupt array that matches the parent in the
> > > > + * interrupt-map
> > > > + */
> > > > + index = irqmux_find_interrupt_index(priv->dev, priv->np, parent_args);
> > > > + if (index < 0)
> > > > + return dev_err_probe(priv->dev, index, "output interrupt not found\n");
> > > > +
> > > > + dev_info(priv->dev, "interrupt %u mapped to output interrupt[%u]\n",
> > > > + src_hwirq, index);
> > >
> > > Do you even need "interrupts"? Just make the "interrupt-map" index
> > > important and correspond to the hw index. That would greatly simplify
> > > all this.
> >
> > I would like to avoid to be based on the interrupt-map index.
> >
> > Indeed, IMHO, it is less robust. I don't thing that we can enforce the
> > interrupt-map items order. Based on interrupt-map index, we need to ensure
> > that the first item is related to GIC 103, the second one to GIC 104 and so
> > on.
>
> How exactly are you enforcing that order for "interrupts"? You can't.
I can impose interrupt-names property in the binding and at least, those
names are to be in order (checked by dtbs_check).
Based on that if a mismatch is present between interrupt-names and
interrupts it is an issue in the dts used.
With interrupt-map, nothing can be imposed and so nothing can be checked.
>
> Aren't you just duplicating the information in "interrupts" in the
> interrupt-map.
>
I will remove 'interrupts' in the next iteration and use only 'interrupt-map'.
I will add some information related to the order of the interrup-map item in the
binding (description of the interrupt-map property).
Best regards,
Hervé
