On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:42:08PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:00:01AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> > I think it is important that a device tree provide some flexibility on >> > kernel versions. We only invented 'interrupts-extended' in Linux 3.13, >> > so it's easy to have device trees that could work only on 3.13+. >> > >> > Typically, we might say that new features require new kernels, but this >> > is a very basic piece of the DT infrastructure. In our case, we have >> > hardware whose basic features can be supported by a single interrupt >> > parent, and so we used the 'interrupts' property pre-3.13. But when we >> > want to add some power management features, there's an additional >> > interrupt parent. Under the current DT binding, we have to switch over >> > to using 'interrupts-extended' exclusively, and thus we must have a >> > completely new DTB for >=3.13, and this DTB no longer works with the old >> > kernels. >> >> "Must have" to enable the new features? > > Yes. The new feature requires an additional interrupt parent, and so it > requires interrupts-extended. Hold on there. What about interrupt-map? That was the traditional DT feature for supporting multi-parented interrupts. Why couldn't the feature have been added using that instead of interrupts-extended? I know interrupts-extended is preferred, but has interrupt-map support been removed from recent kernels? I'm a bit confused. -- Tim Bird Senior Software Engineer, Sony Mobile Architecture Group Chair, CE Workgroup, Linux Foundation -- 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
