Hi Geert,
On 10 April 2018 15:29 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > On 10 April 2018 07:24 Phil Edworthy wrote:
> >> On 09 April 2018 20:20 Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:22:30PM +0100, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > > +- interrupt-mask : a 32-bit bit mask that specifies which
> >> > > +interrupts in the list
> >> > > + of interrupts is valid, bit is 1 for a valid irq.
> >> >
> >> > This is not a standard property and would need a vendor prefix.
> >> > However,
> >> I'd
> >> > prefer you just skip any not connected interrupts with an invalid
> >> > interrupt number. Then the GPIO number is the index into "interrupts".
> >> Makes sense, I'll rework it to do this.
> > Err, what would an invalid interrupt number be?
> > If I use -1, I get a DT parsing error and 0 is certainly valid. If the
> > number is larger than the valid interrupt range I get errors during probe.
>
> Perhaps using interrupts-extended instead of interrupts?
>
> E.g.
>
> interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5 1>, <0>, <&intc2 1 0>;
Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look.
Phil
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
