lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] irqchip: irq-mvebu-odmi: new driver for platform MSI on Marvell 7K/8K
Date
On Thursday 18 February 2016 17:16:23 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:08:05 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 16:58:54 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > +- marvell,spi-base : List of GIC base SPI interrupts, one for each
> > > + ODMI frame. Those SPI interrupts are 0-based,
> > > + i.e marvell,spi-base = <128> will use SPI #96.
> > > + See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > > + for details about the GIC Device Tree binding.
> > >
> >
> > Why are these not just in an 'interrupts' property as we do for other
> > nested irqchips?
>
> I modeled this after the GICv2m bindings. I think the reason is that if
> we were to use the interrupts property, we should be listing *all*
> interrupts of the parent interrupt controller we are using. Which would
> be quite painful when your ODMI interrupt controller uses 32 interrupts
> of the parent controller (I think for the GICv2m, it's even more).
>
> I.e, we currently say:
>
> marvell,spi-base = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
>
> but in fact we are using 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
> 137, etc. until 159.
>
> If you think
>
> interrupts = <128>, <136>, <144>, <152>
>
> is still correct, then why not. But I believe this might be confusing,
> as people will think that we are only using interrupts 128, 136, 144
> and 152, and not 129, 133, 147 or 158.
>

Ok, got it. Your current version seems fine then.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-18 18:01    [W:0.172 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site