Hi Rob and Conor,
On 14/02/24 12:43 am, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:23:36AM +0000,Dharma.B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 12/02/24 7:38 pm, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:31:22PM +0530, Dharma Balasubiramani wrote:
>>>> + atmel,external-irqs:
>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
>>>> + description: u32 array of external irqs.
>>> Constraints on the array size and/or entry values?
>> The hardware's support for external IRQs may differ, which is why a u32
>> array is utilized. This choice is based on the fact that IRQ numbers are
>> commonly expressed as integers, and a 32-bit unsigned integer provides a
>> standardized size capable of representing a broad range of numbers. This
>> size is more than adequate for accommodating IRQ numbering.
> I don't think Rob was questioning your use of u32s, but rather the fact
> that you do not limit the values at all nor the number of values.
The peripheral identification defined at the product level corresponds
to the interrupt source number.
SoC External Interrupts Peripheral ID
AT91RM9200 - IRQ0–IRQ6 25 - 31
SAMA5D2 - IRQ0–IRQn 49
SAMA5D3 - IRQ0–IRQn 47
SAMA5D4 - IRQ0–IRQn 56
SAM9x60 - IRQ0–IRQn 31
To reflect these constraints in bindings, I intend to make the following
changes.
atmel,external-irqs:
$ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
description: u32 array of external irqs.
if:
properties:
compatible:
contains:
const: atmel,at91rm9200-aic
then:
minItems: 1
maxItems: 7
else:
minItems: 1
maxItems: 1
--
With Best Regards,
Dharma B.
