[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110811130910.GA10189@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:09:10 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"weizeng.he@....com" <weizeng.he@....com>,
"workgroup.linux@....com" <workgroup.linux@....com>,
"'Barry Song'" <21cnbao@...il.com>,
"'Grant Likely'" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"'Olof Johansson'" <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: L2x0 OF properties do not include interrupt #
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2011, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I was hoping that it was possible to have separate properties which describe
> > the interrupt. So you could have something like pmu-interrupt <75> and
> > abort-interrupt <76> rather than interrupts <75, 76>.
>
> Ok, I see.
>
> > I've not played with DT bindings before though, so if it's usually done with
> > an ordered list then so be it!
>
> A lot of the code assumes that the property is called 'interrupts' and that
> it contains a fixed-length array of interrupt numbers, each for one specific
> purpose.
Ok, I wondered if something like that might be the case.
> Given that we have so many different meanings for the interrupts, I'm
> not sure how this would work best in this case. According to
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0246f/CHDFHCFJ.html
> this looks like a nested interrupt controller, i.e. the L2CC has its own mask
> and status register with bits for each one of them. We could model these by
> describing the l2cc interrupt controller with these registers and listing all
> nine of the current inputs. I suspect however that it would be easier to just
> assume that there is only one line for now, and treat the l2cc as a single
> interrupt source with an internal status register.
Given that this binding is only for the l2x0 / pl310 and I don't know of any
implementation where > 1 interrupt line is wired up, I'm happy to assume a
single combined interrupt line for now.
Cheers,
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists