lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 02/31] Documentation: Add binding for kalray,kv3-1-core-intc
From
On 26/01/2023 17:10, Jules Maselbas wrote:

>>> + reg:
>>> + maxItems: 0
>>
>> ??? No way... What's this?
> This (per CPU) interrupt controller is not memory mapped at all, it is
> controlled and configured through system registers.
>
> I do not have found existing .yaml bindings for such devices, only the
> file snps,archs-intc.txt has something similar.
>
> I do not know what is the best way to represent such devices in the
> device-tree. Any suggestions are welcome.

You cannot have an array property with 0 items. How would it look like
in DTS? There are many, many bindings which are expressing it. Just drop
the reg.

>
>>
>>> + "kalray,intc-nr-irqs":
>>
>> Drop quotes.
>>
>>> + description: Number of irqs handled by the controller.
>>
>> Why this is variable per board? Why do you need it ?
> This property is not even used in our device-tree, this will be removed
> from the documentation and from the driver as well.
>
>>> +
>>> +required:
>>> + - compatible
>>> + - "#interrupt-cells"
>>> + - interrupt-controller
>>
>> missing additionalProperties: false
>>
>> This binding looks poor, like you started from something odd. Please
>> don't. Take the newest reviewed binding or better example-schema and use
>> it to build yours. This would solve several trivial mistakes and style
>> issues.
> I am starting over from the example-schema.
>
>>> +
>>> +examples:
>>> + - |
>>> + intc: interrupt-controller {
>>
>> What's the IO address space?
> As said above, this is not a memory mapped device, but is accessed
> through system registers.

Sure, but then you cannot define a reg which was confusing...

Best regards,
Krzysztof

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:57    [W:0.115 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site