On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 01:32:49 +0000
Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Peng,
[ ... ]
> > > > +
> > > > + irq_count = platform_irq_count(pdev);
> > > > + if (irq_count == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > > + return irq_count;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (irq_count && irq_count != val) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "Interrupts not match num-chans\n");
> > >
> > > Interrupts property does not match \"arm,num-chans\" would be more
> > correct.
> >
> > Given that interrupts are optional, do we have to rely on this?
>
> If there is interrupt property, the interrupts should match channel counts.
>
> Do we actually
> > need one interrupt per channel?
>
> I thought about this, provide one interrupt for all channels.
> But there is no good way to let interrupt handlers know which
> channel triggers the interrupt. So I use one interrupt per channel.
Yeah, I was wondering about this as well. Seems like we need this indeed.
Just sounds wasteful, but I guess we don't expect many channels anyway,
normally.
Cheers,
Andre.
