Quoting Stephen Boyd (2019-01-11 15:20:48) > Quoting Rob Herring (2019-01-09 11:36:56) > > > > > >However, my main concern is documenting something genericish in a > > > >device specific binding. It looks like Tegra is trying to add the same > > > >thing, so this needs to be documented in a common place. One question > > > >is whether wakeup is the only use or if this should be more generally > > > >a secondary interrupt parent? > > > > > > > Yes, wakeup is the only use of this interrupt parent. > > > > Maybe for you, but I was wondering about this more generally. Should > > we encode what the function (e.g. wakeup) is in the property name or > > have something like aux-interrupt-controller? Maybe some platforms > > have some need for a secondary interrupt-controller which is not > > wakeup. Routing interrupts to other cores perhaps? > > > > I'd say it's not the interrupt-parent, but a secondary-interrupt-parent, > because it's another path that some GPIO interrupts will go through vs. > the "normal" summary irq line that uses the interrupt-parent. Maybe > that's similar to the interrupt partitioning that ARM is doing for PPIs > that only go to some CPUs? > > We don't really specify that some GPIO is corresponding to the secondary > or primary interrupt controller for the GPIO controller in DT. If we > did, then we could do something like the interrupt-map binding and have > the index of that property be the gpio number and the interrupt parent > that it maps to (either summary from the GIC or MPM pin number). > > interrupt-map = <0 0 &gic GIC_SPI 208 0>, > <1 0 &pdc 3 0>; > interrupt-map-mask = <0xfffffff 0>; > > And then we would pass the 2-cell GPIO interrupt specifier (gpio# and > flags) through the table and remap it to arbitrary domain parents. We > could use this same design for the SSBI and SPMI gpio interrupt > controller where we're currently looking at hardcoding the base > interrupt number in the driver (0xc0) and then adding the GPIO number to > that to get the parent interrupt specifier. > > It's sort of an abuse of interrupt-map, but I don't know if it really > matters because there isn't a child of the gpio controller that is going > to go through this table. > Rob, can you please respond?
