Hi, On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Loc Ho <lho@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >>>>>> I think we should first agreed on the DT binding and let's not worry >>>>>> about APEI. Then, whether we have one file or multiple file. Again, >>>>>> the HW consist of: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. One top level interrupt and status registers >>> >>> For these registers, are there ECC specific functions here or just >>> normal interrupt control/status bits (mask/unmask/status)? Assuming >>> the later, then you should make this block an interrupt-controller. >>> Then this is the interrupt-parent for the rest of the blocks. >>> >> >> This is the only item remain before I generate an patch with just the >> memory controller. Most of the code that I see are actually an >> interrupt controller HW. As it is just an interrupt mask and status >> registers, is there an example in Linux that I can model after? Also, >> I am not quite convince as to why we can't just share the interrupt >> and request it by each memory controller? > > Pretty much anything that calls irq_set_chained_handler. If you don't > need to touch the shared registers and can set them up once at boot > time, then you could just do shared irq handlers. But if you have to > clear the interrupt within the PCP, you need a demuxer. > Thanks Rob. I look through the entire driver. Interrupts are cleared at the source. Therefore, the next version will just register for the shared interrupt as it is currently. -Loc -- 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
