On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:43 PM, David Gibson
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:48:07PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> Add a check for nodes with interrupts property that they have a valid
>> parent, the parent has #interrupt-cells property, and the size is a
>> valid multiple of #interrupt-cells.
>>
>> This may not handle every possible case and doesn't deal with
>> translation thru interrupt-map properties, but should be enough for
>> modern dts files.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> checks.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/checks.c b/checks.c
>> index c0450e118043..0d452bf8e674 100644
>> --- a/checks.c
>> +++ b/checks.c
>> @@ -1070,6 +1070,63 @@ static void check_gpio_cells_property(struct check *c,
>> }
>> WARNING(gpio_cells_property, check_gpio_cells_property, NULL);
>>
>> +static void check_interrupts_property(struct check *c,
>> + struct dt_info *dti,
>> + struct node *node)
>> +{
>> + struct node *root = dti->dt;
>> + struct node *irq_node = NULL, *parent = node;
>> + struct property *irq_prop, *prop = NULL;
>> + int irq_cells, phandle;
>> +
>> + irq_prop = get_property(node, "interrupts");
>> + if (!irq_prop)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + while (parent && !prop) {
>> + if (parent != node) {
>
> So, it's kind of academic, but is it actually disallowed for an
> interrupt-controller node to itself have interrupts which are
> implicityly routed to itself?
I think so, yes. Because otherwise how do you describe a chained
interrupt controller? "interrupts" in the chained controller's node
are the parent's interrupts. I guess you have to rely on the
compatible implying any interrupts connected to itself. It could work
with interrupts-extended though.
[...]
>> @@ -1103,6 +1160,7 @@ static struct check *check_table[] = {
>>
>> &provider_cells_property,
>> &gpio_cells_property,
>> + &interrupts_property,
>>
>> &always_fail,
>> };
>
> With both these patches testcases to make sure the checks actually
> trip on a bad example would be good.
Yeah, I wanted to get some initial feedback first.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-compiler" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
