[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140211204737.GA1895@mithrandir>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:47:39 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
Cc: swarren@...dotorg.org, josephl@...dia.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: dalmore: fix irq trigger type
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:11:32PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote:
> Trigger type needs to be IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH since the interrupt
> signal gets inverted by the PMC (configured by the invert-interrupt
> property).
Isn't the reason the other way around? The PMIC generates a low-level
interrupt, but the GIC can only be configured to accept high-level (or
rising edge) and therefore the nvidia,invert-interrupt property needs to
be set in the PMC node?
One nitpick below.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114-dalmore.dts
[...]
> @@ -888,8 +888,9 @@
> palmas: tps65913@58 {
> compatible = "ti,palmas";
> reg = <0x58>;
> - interrupts = <0 86 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>
> + /* active-low configured by PMC invert-interrupt */
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 86 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
I'd prefer to keep the properties grouped as before. interrupts is a
"client" property, whereas #interrupt-cells and interrupt-controller
are "provider" properties.
And I think the comment would be more appropriate in the pmc node, for
the same reason that I think the commit description isn't entirely
accurate.
Thierry
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists