On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:43:38AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/26/2012 07:41 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:01:05PM +0300, Terje Bergström wrote:
> >> On 26.06.2012 13:55, Thierry Reding wrote:
> ...
> >>> status = "disabled";
> >>>
> >>> gart = <&gart>;
> >>>
> >>> /* video-encoding/decoding */ mpe { reg = <0x54040000
> >>> 0x00040000>; interrupts = <0 68 0x04>; status = "disabled"; };
> >>
> >>
> >> The client device interrupts are not very interesting, so they
> >> could be left out, too. Display controller related are probably
> >> an exception to this.
> >
> > If the interrupts aren't used at all we should drop them.
>
> I disagree here; "used" is most likely something specific to a
> particular OS's drivers. The HW always has the interrupts, and hence
> they should be described in DT.
Okay, I see. Does the same apply to the COP interrupts of the host1x
node in your opinion? I don't know if it makes sense to describe
something that's not reachable from the CPU. Yet it is defined in the
GIC.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpB9yjNbkr3g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
