On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:39:23 +0100, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> The standard interrupts property in device tree can only handle >> interrupts coming from a single interrupt parent. If a device is wired >> to multiple interrupt controllers, then it needs to be attached to a >> node with an interrupt-map property to demux the interrupt specifiers >> which is confusing. It would be a lot easier if there was a form of the >> interrupts property that allows for a separate interrupt phandle for >> each interrupt specifier. >> >> This patch does exactly that by creating a new interrupts-extended >> property which reuses the phandle+arguments pattern used by GPIOs and >> other core bindings. >> >> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.lik...@linaro.org> >> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herr...@calxeda.com> > > Alright, I want to merge this one. I've got an Ack from Tony, general > agreement from an in person converstaion from Ben (aside from wishing he > could think of a better property name), and various rumblings of > approval from anyone I talked to about it at ksummit. I'd like to have > something more that that to put into the commit text. Please take a look > and let me know if you agree/disagree with this binding.
I think it looks fine, but I'll throw out an alternative proposal. Simply allow for interrupt-parent to be an array in equal size to interrupts property. Then it is a minimal change to the existing binding: interrupt-parent = <&intc1>, <&intc2>; interrupts = <5 0>, <6 0>; Of course interrupts-extended is more inline with standard patterns for bindings. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
