lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] of/irq: lookup 'interrupts-extended' property first
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Tim Bird <tbird20d@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Brian Norris
> <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:42:08PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:00:01AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> > I think it is important that a device tree provide some flexibility on
>>> > kernel versions. We only invented 'interrupts-extended' in Linux 3.13,
>>> > so it's easy to have device trees that could work only on 3.13+.
>>> >
>>> > Typically, we might say that new features require new kernels, but this
>>> > is a very basic piece of the DT infrastructure. In our case, we have
>>> > hardware whose basic features can be supported by a single interrupt
>>> > parent, and so we used the 'interrupts' property pre-3.13. But when we
>>> > want to add some power management features, there's an additional
>>> > interrupt parent. Under the current DT binding, we have to switch over
>>> > to using 'interrupts-extended' exclusively, and thus we must have a
>>> > completely new DTB for >=3.13, and this DTB no longer works with the old
>>> > kernels.
>>>
>>> "Must have" to enable the new features?
>>
>> Yes. The new feature requires an additional interrupt parent, and so it
>> requires interrupts-extended.
>
> Hold on there. What about interrupt-map? That was the traditional DT
> feature for
> supporting multi-parented interrupts. Why couldn't the feature have been added
> using that instead of interrupts-extended?

It could have, but interrupts-extended is much more simple to express
for the simple case of a device's interrupts routed to more than one
parent.

> I know interrupts-extended is preferred, but has interrupt-map support been
> removed from recent kernels? I'm a bit confused.

They are all still supported. It's just a question of order of parsing
if you have find both styles.

Rob


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-07 00:41    [W:0.069 / U:2.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site