On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:04:52 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:17:01 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> It's going to get a little verbose once you start making multiple >> >> connections as you need one mux per wire. Perhaps it could be cleaned >> >> up by making the foo_irq_mux node(s) a child of foo? >> > >> > It could, but then you need some way of attaching a driver to that node, >> > and that would require building knowledge into the driver again. >> > >> > Can you boil it down to a couple of concrete examples? What is a >> > specific example of how the platform should decide which interrupt line >> > to use? >> > >> >> So i've spent some time playing with this. I now have a booting kernel >> with multiple root interrupt controllers and peripheral devices >> multiply-connected to both root controllers. But only one on of the >> controllers is used by Linux (as linux being able to use multiple >> intcs is a non-trivial problem). So the scheme I am using is to have >> one of these root intc's marked as disabled via > > Multiple intc's should be a solved problem. What issue are you seeing? > Or is this a microblaze specific problem? > It's multiple root (i.e. have no explicit parent) interrupt controllers. And linux doesnt respect status = "disabled" for interrupt controllers at all it seems. I'll send the patches tmrw. Regards, Peter -- 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
