Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: renesas,rzg2l-irqc: Document RZ/G2UL SoC

[Lad, Prabhakar]

Hi Geert,

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:29 PM Lad, Prabhakar
<prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Geert,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:54 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prabhakar,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:53 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Document RZ/G2UL (R9A07G043) IRQC bindings. The RZ/G2UL IRQC block is
> > > identical to one found on the RZ/G2L SoC. No driver changes are
> > > required as generic compatible string "renesas,rzg2l-irqc" will be
> > > used as a fallback.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > > ---
> > > Note, renesas,r9a07g043u-irqc is added we have slight difference's compared to RZ/Five
> > > - G2UL IRQCHIP (hierarchical IRQ domain) -> GIC where as on RZ/Five we have PLIC (chained interrupt
> > > domain) -> RISCV INTC
> >
> > I think this difference is purely a software difference, and abstracted
> > in DTS through the interrupt hierarchy.
> > Does it have any impact on the bindings?
> >
> > > - On the RZ/Five we have additional registers for IRQC block
> >
> > Indeed, the NMI/IRQ/TINT "Interruput" Mask Control Registers, thus
> > warranting separate compatible values.
> >
> > > - On the RZ/Five we have BUS_ERR_INT which needs to be handled by IRQC
> >
> > Can you please elaborate? I may have missed something, but to me it
> > looks like that is exactly the same on RZ/G2UL and on RZ/Five.
> >
> Now that we have to update the binding doc with the BUS_ERR_INT too,
> do you think it would make sense to add interrupt-names too?
>
> BUS_ERR_INT will have to be handled IRQC itself (i.e. IRQC will
> register a handler for it).
>
Gentle ping.

Cheers,
Prabhakar