On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:58:23PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 10:58 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add device tree nodes for the legacy interrupt controller so that the
> > driver can get the register ranges from device tree rather than hard-
> > coding them.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>
> > + interrupt-controller@60004000 {
> > + compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-ictlr";
> > + reg = <0x60004000 0x40 /* primary controller */
> > + 0x60004100 0x40 /* secondary controller */
> > + 0x60004200 0x40 /* tertiary controller */
> > + 0x60004300 0x40 /* quaternary controller */
> > + 0x60004400 0x40>; /* quinary controller */
> > + };
>
> The quinary controller doesn't exist on Tegra20.
Right, I've dropped it.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra30.dtsi
>
> > + interrupt-controller@60004000 {
> > + compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-ictlr";
>
> At the least, each SoC should have an SoC-specific compatible value in
> addition to the base Tegra20 value in case we need to differentiate them
> in the future.
>
> I'd be tempted to only include the SoC-specific value and omit the
> Tegra20-specific value so we don't have to care whether they're really
> 100% backwards-compatible, but it's probably safe to say they're all
> Tegra20 compatible (or all Tegra30 compatible given the 4-vs-5
> controllers difference).
I've looked at the register specification files and I can't see any
differences between Tegra20, Tegra30, Tegra114 and Tegra124. Except
for the absence of a quinary controller on Tegra20.
I think I'll go with this:
tegra114.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra114-ictlr", "nvidia,tegra30-ictlr";
tegra124.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-ictlr", "nvidia,tegra30-ictlr";
tegra20.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-ictlr";
tegra30.dtsi: compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ictlr";
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpRFP0WcD1Ts.pgp
Description: PGP signature
