Hi Stephen, On Sunday 20 October 2013 22:35:04 Stephen Warren wrote: > On 10/20/2013 01:41 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 September 2013 17:36:32 Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:57:00 +0200, Alexander Holler 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... > > ... > > >> 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: > ... > > >> device@3000 { > >> interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5> <&intc2 3 4> <&intc1 6>; > >> }; > > ... > > > Any progress on this ? I'll need to use multiple interrupts with different > > parents in the near future, I can take this over if needed. > > > > I've also been thinking that we could possibly reuse the "interrupts" > > property without defining a new "interrupts-extended". When parsing the > > property the code would use the current DT bindings if an > > interrupt-parent is present, and the new DT bindings if it isn't. > > interrupt-parents doesn't have to be present in individual nodes; it can > be inherited from the parent. That means you'd have to convert whole > sub-trees at once. Very good point. I agree with you, a new property is then better. > It seems much more flexible to use a new property and hence make it explicit > what format the data is in. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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