Re: Subject: L2x0 OF properties do not include interrupt #

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:06:23PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 10:38 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > 
> > You mean putting the combined interrupt first? If so, we may as well just
> > specify that until somebody builds a platform that doesn't have it.
> > 
> 
> No, either you have 1 interrupt and it is the combined one. or you have
> the 9? separate interrupts.  Having both combined and separate hooked up
> is a bit dumb, so I would not worry about that case. I would just define
> the event counter interrupt 1st as that is probably the primary use.
> Also, I think that was the only interrupt on the L2x0 controllers IIRC.
> 
> It's also conceivable that some of the interrupts get routed somewhere
> else rather than just into the GIC.

Ok. I think the binding that Mark posted to devicetree-discuss:

http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2011-August/007349.html

will take care of this. We have a single interrupt (I don't think we even
need to specify what it is). Interrupt handlers can request this with
IRQ_SHARED and then check the status register to see whether they actually
need to do anything.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/