Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:46:43 +0200 | From | Wolfram Sang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] uio: add an of_genirq driver |
| |
> driver. A user _has_ to setup irq, if there is none, he still has to set > irq=UIO_IRQ_NONE. For that matter, 'not specified' and 'not found' is both > the same bad thing.
Hmm, what should I do?
A typical interrupts-property in a device-tree is specified as:
interrupts = <&irq_controller_node irq_number irq_sense>;
Something like UIO_IRQ_NONE does not fit into this scheme, even more as it is Linux-specific and device trees need to be OS independant.
I'm pretty sure the correct way to state that you don't need an interrupt in the device-tree is to simply not specify the above interrupt property.
Well, yes, that means you can't distinguish between 'forgotten' and 'intentionally left out'. I wonder if it is really that bad? If something does not work (= one is missing interrupts), the first place to look at is the device tree. If one does not see an interrupt-property, voila, problem solved.
(Note that with my latest suggestion, a _wrong_ interrupt is handled the same way as with platform_data. request_irq() should equally fail if the return-value from irq_of_parse_and_map() is simply forwarded.)
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
| |