On 10/27/2013 07:46 AM, Grant Likely 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.
The new binding makes sense to me. So, the binding, Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> A couple of minor perhaps bikesheddy comments below. >> diff --git >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt >> +Nodes that describe devices which generate interrupts must contain an >> either an >> +"interrupts" property or an "interrupts-extended" property. These properties "interrupts-ex" would be shorter, although I guess slightly harder to guess its purpose, unless you're familiar with "ex" in symbol names. ... >> +A device node may contain either "interrupts" or "interrupts-extended", but >> not >> +both. If both properties are present, then the operating system should log >> an >> +error That sounds rather like prescribing SW behaviour, which I thought DT bindings shouldn't do? >> and use only the data in "interrupts". ... so perhaps that's better phrased as: A device node may contain either "interrupts" or "interrupts-extended", but not both. If both properties are present, the data in "interrupts" takes precedence. -- 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/
