Hi,

Summary
=======

Fix IRQ Domain DT support issues and gpio IRQ

Proposer
========

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...>

Description
===========

Today the kernel have multiple issues arround the IRQ

* IRQ Domain platfrom driver support

Today if you register an irq domain via a platform driver and then use the irq
in DT such as this

eth0: ethernet@30000000 {
compatible = "micrel,ks8851-mll";
reg = <0x30000000 0x1
0x30000002 0xff>;
interrupt-parent = <&pioD>;
interrupts = <21 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>;
pinctrl-names = "default";
pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_board_eth0>;
status = "okay";
};

the irq in the platform resource will not be fill as the resolve is done at of_platform_populate
To fix this we need to resolve the irq at driver probe time.

* Multiple interrupt-parent support

Today if you need the irq from 2 interrupt controler it's impossible.
Such as a hw irq and a GPIO irq both provided via dt

To fix this implement a new property "interrupt-lines"

that will work in a same way as gpios by providing firt the phandle of the controller
and then the cell data

interrupt-lines = <&aic 0 4 0 & pioD 21 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH>;

* gpio irq DT

Today you need to use a gpio as IRQ you need to configure it and then use it
As a in the kernel we make the disctinction between standard IRQ and gpio IRQ.
This should have never been the case and need to be fix up widely.
By droping all the gpio_to_irq in the drivers and ONLY provide interrupts

Scope
=====

I think the main ideas can be discussed and implemented in 240 hours effort.
If the duration is 3 or 5 months depends on how discussions with upstream go.


Contractor candidates
=====================

Given that I already started digging into the topic, have some designs sketched
and already submitted initial patches, I recommend myself. I also think I have
enough upstream experience to deal with such a major task.

Best Regards,
J.
_______________________________________________
Celinux-dev mailing list
Celinux-dev@...
https://lists.celinuxforum.org/mailman/listinfo/celinux-dev

Scope
=====

I think the main ideas can be discussed and implemented in 240 hours effort.
If the duration is 3 or 5 months depends on how discussions with upstream go.


Contractor candidates
=====================

Given that I already started digging into the topic, have some designs sketched
and already submitted initial patches, I recommend myself. I also think I have
enough upstream experience to deal with such a major task.

Eeks, these are my text-blocks. This is weak. Tim, I think we should
remove the "share-alike" from proposals? I mean, if the topic is of real
importance, one can easily invest a bit of time for those two
paragraphs.

And as a sidenote, it doesn't fit well. Since Jean dropped the "Related
work" section, there is no proof about digging into the topic and
sketching some designs.

Wolfram

Tim, I think we should remove the "share-alike" from proposals?

I mean "remove the remix". I'd suggest CC BY-ND for proposals.

On 11:55 Wed 02 Oct , Wolfram Sang wrote:

Scope
=====

I think the main ideas can be discussed and implemented in 240 hours effort.
If the duration is 3 or 5 months depends on how discussions with upstream go.


Contractor candidates
=====================

Given that I already started digging into the topic, have some designs sketched
and already submitted initial patches, I recommend myself. I also think I have
enough upstream experience to deal with such a major task.

Eeks, these are my text-blocks. This is weak. Tim, I think we should
remove the "share-alike" from proposals? I mean, if the topic is of real
importance, one can easily invest a bit of time for those two
paragraphs.

yeah I like the english so I re-use it if you do not mind

And as a sidenote, it doesn't fit well. Since Jean dropped the "Related
work" section, there is no proof about digging into the topic and
sketching some designs.

sorry patch on the device-tree ML

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/36679

Those topic was discussed with Grant and LinusW in Cc

Best Regards,
J.

Wolfram

Eeks, these are my text-blocks. This is weak. Tim, I think we should
remove the "share-alike" from proposals? I mean, if the topic is of real
importance, one can easily invest a bit of time for those two
paragraphs.

yeah I like the english so I re-use it if you do not mind

I do mind. I would have not if you had a) asked beforehand or b) gave
correct attribution according to the license.

On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 2:13 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:

Summary
=======

Fix IRQ Domain DT support issues and gpio IRQ

...

Jean-Christophe,

Given objections raised on the list, and my preference for easy submission
to the elinux wiki, can you re-submit this proposal with the following changes:

1) please use the format specified in the template at:
http://elinux.org/CEWG_Open_Project_Proposal_template

2) please fill in the Scope and Contractor Candidates sections
with your own wording.

This should not take too long.

Thanks,
-- Tim