> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:41:11 +0100 > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 1:17 PM Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + > > + The 2nd cell contains the interrupt number. > > + - HW IRQs: interrupt number > > + - FIQs: > > + - 0: physical HV timer > > + - 1: virtual HV timer > > + - 2: physical guest timer > > + - 3: virtual guest timer > > I wonder if you could just model the FIQ as a single shared level interrupt > (which is essentially what it is), and have every driver that uses it do a > request_irq() on the same IRQ number. > > This would avoid having to come up with a fake binding for it, and simplify > the implementation that then no longer has to peek into each interrupt > source. That would tie the binding more closely to the implementation as it would remove the option of peeking at the interrupt source. And wouldn't it mean that the arch_timer driver would need to know whether the interrupt is shared or not?
