Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:38:00 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: Subject: L2x0 OF properties do not include interrupt # |
| |
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 04:32:08PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > On 08/11/2011 08:09 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > > 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. > > > > I know of one. Although, we have the combined interrupt as well. The > binding should allow either way and specify the order. If the event > counter interrupt is 1st, then it should be the same to s/w.
You mean putting the combined interrupt first? If so, we may as well just specify that until somebody builds a platform that doesn't have it.
Will
| |