[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090614234643.GA17791@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:46:43 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: "Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>
Cc: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
devicetree-discuss@...abs.org, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] uio: add an of_genirq driver
> driver. A user _has_ to setup irq, if there is none, he still has to set
> irq=UIO_IRQ_NONE. For that matter, 'not specified' and 'not found' is both
> the same bad thing.
Hmm, what should I do?
A typical interrupts-property in a device-tree is specified as:
interrupts = <&irq_controller_node irq_number irq_sense>;
Something like UIO_IRQ_NONE does not fit into this scheme, even more as it is
Linux-specific and device trees need to be OS independant.
I'm pretty sure the correct way to state that you don't need an interrupt in
the device-tree is to simply not specify the above interrupt property.
Well, yes, that means you can't distinguish between 'forgotten' and
'intentionally left out'. I wonder if it is really that bad? If something does
not work (= one is missing interrupts), the first place to look at is the
device tree. If one does not see an interrupt-property, voila, problem solved.
(Note that with my latest suggestion, a _wrong_ interrupt is handled the same
way as with platform_data. request_irq() should equally fail if the
return-value from irq_of_parse_and_map() is simply forwarded.)
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists