On Sunday 28 September 2014 15:53:30 suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx wrote:
> + interrupt-controller@e1101000 {
> + compatible = "arm,gic-400";
> + #interrupt-cells = >;
> + #address-cells = <2>;
> + #size-cells = <2>;
> + interrupt-controller;
> + interrupts = <1 8 0xf04>;
> + ranges = <0 0 0 0xe1100000 0 0x100000>;
> + reg = <0x0 0xe1110000 0 0x01000>,
> + <0x0 0xe112f000 0 0x02000>,
> + <0x0 0xe1140000 0 0x10000>,
> + <0x0 0xe1160000 0 0x10000>;
> + v2m0: v2m@0x8000 {
> + compatible = "arm,gic-v2m-frame";
> + msi-controller;
> + reg = <0x0 0x80000 0 0x1000>;
> + };
> +
> + ....
> +
> + v2mN: v2m@0x9000 {
> + compatible = "arm,gic-v2m-frame";
> + msi-controller;
> + reg = <0x0 0x90000 0 0x1000>;
> + };
> + };
>
Could this just be modeled as a separate msi-controller node
outside of the GIC?
Instead of the arm,msi-base-spi/arm,msi-num-spis properties, how
about using regular "interrupts"/"interrupt-parent" properties listing
the exact interrupts? That would also make it more flexible in
case the same layout is used with a parent other than the GIC.
ARnd
--
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
