Hi Phil,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Phil Edworthy
<phil.edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10 April 2018 07:24 Phil Edworthy wrote:
>> On 09 April 2018 20:20 Rob Herring wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:22:30PM +0100, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> [...]
>> > > +- interrupt-mask : a 32-bit bit mask that specifies which interrupts
>> > > +in the list
>> > > + of interrupts is valid, bit is 1 for a valid irq.
>> >
>> > This is not a standard property and would need a vendor prefix. However,
>> I'd
>> > prefer you just skip any not connected interrupts with an invalid interrupt
>> > number. Then the GPIO number is the index into "interrupts".
>> Makes sense, I'll rework it to do this.
> Err, what would an invalid interrupt number be?
> If I use -1, I get a DT parsing error and 0 is certainly valid. If the number is
> larger than the valid interrupt range I get errors during probe.
Perhaps using interrupts-extended instead of interrupts?
E.g.
interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5 1>, <0>, <&intc2 1 0>;
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
