On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:06:35 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. That can be fixed. :-) 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
