On 17/12/2018 13:52, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Montag, den 17.12.2018, 10:32 +0000 schrieb Marc Zyngier: > [...] >> OK, this is now making sense, thanks for that. I'm wondering if it'd >> make sense to expose both IRQs in the DT for each irqsteer, and use >> fsl,channel as the selector? It doesn't change much in the driver, but >> seems to describe the HW in a more complete way. >> >> I don't care much either way, and I'll leave it for you and the DT folks >> to decide. > > At least according to the preliminary documentation available about the > i.MX8QM not all of the channels are routed to an upstream IRQ which is > visible to the Linux system. Some of them may also go to the Cortex-M > subsystem, so for your suggestion to work I would need a scheme to > describe the output interrupts with holes in between them. > > I guess that complicates things a bit too much for little gain, as I > don't see us switching the controller between different channels at > runtime (which is the only thing I could imagine which would benefit > from this more complete HW description). The current binding can deal > with having some channels which route to something invisible to the > Linux system just fine, so I'm leaning toward keeping things as they > are now. Fair enough. I'll freeze the tree tomorrow, so if you want this into 4.21, now is the time. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
