[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201303250929.58010.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:29:57 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] PCI: Introduce MSI chip infrastructure
On Monday 25 March 2013, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I think you can just make this:
>
> mpic: interrupt-controller@...20000 {
> ...
> };
>
> ...
>
> soc {
> pcie-controller {
> marvell,msi = <&mpic>;
> };
> };
>
> And everything else should just work given the APIs I mentioned. But as
> you said it'd be good if somebody else could share their opinion about
> this.
I think the property referring to the msi controller should have a fixed
name, such as "msi-parent", to go along with "interrupt-parent".
Similarly, I would suggest using an empty "msi-controller" property
to mark the controller that is capable of serving MSIs. The Linux
implementation doesn't currently require the "interrupt-controller"
property, but I think it's good to stay close to the original interrupt
binding here for consistency.
Arnd
--
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