On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Carlo Caione <carlo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> + for (i = 0; i < pc->num_gic_irqs; i++) {
>>> + struct of_phandle_args oirq;
>>> +
>>> + of_irq_parse_one(node, i, &oirq);
>>> + irq_of_phandle_args_to_fwspec(&oirq, &pc->gic_irqs[i]);
>>> +
>>> + pc->irq_map[i] = IRQ_FREE;
>>> + }
>>
>> The whole thing feels weird. Why do you need to keep a set of fwspecs?
>
> We only have 8 IRQs on the GIC side that we can use for the GPIOs. The
> set of fwspec is used to track these IRQs.
> At probe time we read from the DTS how many and which IRQs are
> reserved on the GIC for the GPIOs. Every time a GPIO IRQ is installed,
> we use one of these IRQ lines.
>
>> All you need is a range of interrupts that would be conveniently
>> represented by a bitmap (assuming your interrupts space is a mostly
>> contiguous range).
>
> I could do that but it feels to me like we end up hiding from the DTS
> some information that naturally should be in there: a pinctrl device
> that is using 8 interrupt lines of its interrupt controller. IMO this
> is not a special case that requires some special treatment.
Marc,
What's your opinion on this? So I can start cooking v3
Thanks,
--
Carlo Caione
--
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
