Hi, On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:58:20PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:43:22PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > BTW, OTOH writing all children into the DT actually describes the HW, > > no ? And depending on the device I feel it'd be better to write that > > Well, it depends on the hardware. Some hardware has a bunch of nice, > neat IPs which can usefully be reproduced and which map sensibly onto OS > abstractions but a lot of it doesn't and frequently the abstractions > which Linux wants to use don't bear a huge resemblance to the hardware > (and Linux's ideas can change over time, as with the clock API being > factored out for example). > > > data to DT. Think of twlxxxx (TI's PMICs), we might have completely > > unrelated drivers using one of TWL's GPIO lines as an interrupt source. > > > If that particular children isn't listed in DT, it can't be used as an > > interrupt-parent, right ? > > You can have the interrupt controller there without having to list every > IP in the device, just make the parent device the interrupt controller > to DT. fair enough, thanks ;-) -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
