On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:57:00 +0200, Alexander Holler <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 12.09.2013 17:19, schrieb Stephen Warren:
> >
> > IRQs, DMA channels, and GPIOs are all different things. Their bindings
> > are defined independently. While it's good to define new types of
> > bindings consistently with other bindings, this hasn't always happened,
> > so you can make zero assumptions about the IRQ bindings by reading the
> > documentation for any other kind of binding.
> >
> > Multiple interrupts are defined as follows:
> >
> > // Optional; otherwise inherited from parent/grand-parent/...
> > interrupt-parent = <&gpio6>;
> > // Must be in a fixed order, unless binding defines that the
> > // optional interrupt-names property is to be used.
> > interrupts = <1 IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH> <2 IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW>;
> > // Optional; binding for device defines whether it must
> > // be present
> > interrupt-names = "foo", "bar";
> >
> > If you need multiple interrupts, each with a different parent, you need
> > to use an interrupt-map property (Google it for a more complete
> > explanation I guess). Unlike "interrupts", "interrupt-map" has a phandle
> > in each entry, and hence each entry can refer to a different IRQ
> > controller. You end up defining a dummy interrupt controller node (which
> > may be the leaf node with multiple IRQ outputs, which then points at
> > itself as the interrupt parent), pointing the leaf node's
> > interrupt-parent at that node, and then having interrupt-map "demux" the
> > N interrupt outputs to the various interrupt controllers.
>
> What a mess. I assume that is the price that bindings don't have to change.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that,
>
> Alexander Holler
Actually, I think it is solveable but doing so requires a new binding
for interrupts. I took a shot at implementing it earlier this week and
I've got working patches that I'll be posting soon. I created a new
"interrupts-extended" property that uses a phandle+args type of
binding like this:
intc1: intc@1000 {
interrupt-controller;
#interrupt-cells = <1>;
};
intc2: intc@2000 {
interrupt-controller;
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
};
device@3000 {
interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5> <&intc2 3 4> <&intc1 6>;
};
'interrupts-extended' will be proposed as a directly replacement of the
'interrupts' property and it will eliminate the need for an
interrupt-map property. A node will be allowed to have one or the other,
but not both.
I'll write up a proper binding document and post for review.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
