linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <526EDB80.7080406@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:47:44 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property

On 10/27/2013 07:46 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:39:23 +0100, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.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.likely@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.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 <swarren@...dia.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 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/