On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:51:40PM +0800, Ryder Lee wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 12:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > What harm does having the extra information in the bindings do? If it's > > possible there might be a use for the extra interrupt it seems better to > > have people describe it. > Yes you're right. The current driver get IRQ number by index "0" but > actually it should be "1" (GIC 132). Perhaps we can switch to use the > platform_get_irq_byname() and add interrupt-name in DT so that binding > can be agnostic of the IRQ order. Yes, that's generally good - it also means that if future revisions of the IP have different sets of interrupts the binding can adapt gracefully.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
