On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 17:50 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > +???????????????????????#clock-cells = <0>;
> > > > +???????????????????????compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > > +???????????????????????clock-frequency = <1000000000>;
> > > > +???????????????};
> > > > +
> > > > +???????????????core_intc: archs-intc at cpu {
> > >
> > > cpu is not a valid unit-address. How are these interrupt
> > > controllers addressed?
> >
> > We have per-core INTC so each core communicates to its own INTC and
> > there's no way
> > for any core to talk with INTC of another core.
> >
> > But then we have the next level INTC which is IDU (Interrupt
> > Distribution Unit)
> > which dispatches "common" IRQs to different upstream per-core INTC,
> > see below its node.?
>
> Okay, I'd just do "cpu-interrupt-controller" for the node name then.?
> There doesn't seem to be an easy way to use just "interrupt-
> controller"?
> since you have 2 nodes at the same level and no unit-address (i.e. a?
> reg property).
>
To be more clarify, what is better way do describe such hardware in
device tree?
-------------????-------------??
| cpu core 0|????| cpu core 1|??
-------------????-------------??
| interrupt |????| interrupt |??
| controller|????| controller|??
|?????0?????|????|?????1?????|??
-------------????-------------??
??????^????????????????^
??????|????????????????|
?????????????-----------
??????|??????|
----------------
|???interrupt??|
| distribution |
|?????unit?????|
----------------
??????^
??????|
??????|<--other devices interrupt lines
We can't just create a node for each core interrupt controller because
we wouldn't able to specify which one is parent for interrupt
distribution unit:
------------>>>-------------
cpus {
????cpu at 0 { intc at 0 };
????cpu at 1 { intc at 1 };
};
interrupt-distribution-unit {
????interrupt-parent = ????
};
------------>>>-------------
Should we simply create one core interrupt controller node for all cpus
(instead of one per each cpu core), or where is a better option?
--
?Eugeniy Paltsev
