[...] > >> @@ -1009,6 +1012,16 @@ gic_of_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent) > >> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "cpu-offset", &percpu_offset)) > >> percpu_offset = 0; > >> > >> + gic_data[gic_cnt].irq_chip = &gic_chip; > >> + > >> + /* Currently, we only support one v2m subnode. */ > >> + child = of_get_child_by_name(node, "v2m"); > >> + if (child) { > >> + ret = gicv2m_of_init(child, &gic_data[gic_cnt]); > >> + if (ret) > >> + return ret; > >> + } > > > > I can't see how you'd sanely expand this to multiple children, which was > > the main point of having a separate node for the M block. > > > > Give the M block a compatible string and look for children with that > > string. > > Mark, > > I am making change in the struct gic_chip_data to contain "v2m_list" (instead of just > a single struct v2m_data). This way, it is clear on how we should handle multiple v2m nodes > within a GIC. Ok. > As for the device tree binding, in order to handle multiple v2m nodes within a GIC, > it should not require adding another compatibility ID as it seems too complicate > to have GIC node with multiple compat IDs). I don't follow. How does each sub-node having a compatible string complicate the GIC node? Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html