On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:52:21 +0000, "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:33 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > interrupts would work just fine here: > > > > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > <GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > <GIC_SPI 6 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > <GIC_SPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > <GIC_SPI 8 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > <GIC_SPI 9 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > <GIC_SPI 10 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > <GIC_SPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > > > > We don't need a different solution for N:1 interrupts from N:M. Sure, > > that could become unweldy if there are a lot of interrupts (just like > > interrupt-map), but is that an immediate problem? > > > It's just that with this approach the driver will have to index the > interrupts instead of reading from DT. > > Marc - is it OK with the above approach? Anything that uses standard properties in a standard way works for me. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
