[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52183A56.5020707@roeck-us.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:45:10 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward
On 08/23/2013 08:06 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 07:55:31PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>> Question is: Does this work _today_ with any existing driver, where
>> one interrupt is served through ACPI and another as 'standard' Linux
>> interrupt ? If yes, it must be working, and using fdt to describe
>> the interrupt mapping for the non-ACPI interrupt should not make
>> a difference. If no, the problem does not really have anything
>> to do with fdt.
>
> There's no such thing as an ACPI interrupt, it's just a data source in
> the same way that PnP used to be. _CRS refers to platform interrupts.
>
Ah, you are catching my lack of ACPI knowledge.
Rephrasing the question:
"What happens when you have an ACPI device that contains an interrupt in
_CRS and contains a different interrupt in an embedded FDT block?"
Does the situation occur today, ie does it ever happen that one interrupt
for a device is specified (if that is the correct term) in _CRS and
another by some other means ?
Guenter
--
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