* Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> [171101 21:07]: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:45:17PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > IMO, since you're trying to augment a standardized binding, you need to > > be a lot clearer here. I expect you should mention the existing standard > > (that devices may optionally include an 'interrupts' property that > > represents the legacy PCI interrupt) and how you're augmenting it (that > > additional interrupts can be supported optionally, but they require a > > corresponding 'interrupt-names' property). > > There's an additional complication that I'd guess the wakeup is > typically a GPIO line and hence a different parent. We have 2 options > there. The first is interrupts-extended which is generally implicitly > supported (i.e. we only document interrupts). The second is we already > have interrupt-map if we have legacy interrupts and can map to different > parents. For this to work, we'd have to use a number >4 for the wakeup > interrupts. The wakeup interrupt can also be a separate always on interrupt controller in addition to GPIOs. Anyways, the interrupts-extended binding works well for these. And the interrupt-names we seem to have standardized on are "irq" and "wakeup". Regards, Tony -- 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
