On Wednesday 10 August 2011, Mark Rutland wrote: > I realise I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'd like to propose adding an > optional interrupt parameter to the binding. I'm not aware of any > implementations which use separate interrupts, but given the binding > seems to be generic across L2CC implementations (and is not limited simply to > the L2x0), having a list rather than a single interrupt may be appropriate for > someone.
Sounds good, thanks for pointing this out. How many possible interrupt sources are there? If there is only a small number of those (e.g. at most 4), we might just list all of them and register them from the driver even if they are all the same. > This would boil down to (for the moment) a Documentation change along the > lines of: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt > > index f50e021..d4b387b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/l2cc.txt > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ Optional properties: > > - arm,filter-ranges : <start length> Starting address and length of window > > to > > filter. Addresses in the filter window are directed to the M1 port. Other > > addresses will go to the M0 port. > > +- interrupt : A combined interrupt. > > > > Example: > > > > @@ -39,4 +40,5 @@ L2: cache-controller { > > arm,filter-latency = <0x80000000 0x8000000>; > > cache-unified; > > cache-level = <2>; > > + interrupt = <45>; > > }; > > Any thoughts? Do we also need to document an interrupt-parent property, or is that implied? Arnd _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss