Hi Mark,

On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 18:07 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 02:14:11PM +0000, Yingjoe Chen wrote:

quoted

Add binding documentation for Mediatek SoC SYSIRQ.

Signed-off-by: Yingjoe Chen <redacted>
---
 .../bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,sysirq.txt      | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,sysirq.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,sysirq.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,sysirq.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8669536
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,sysirq.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Mediatek 65xx/81xx sysirq
+
+Mediatek SOCs sysirq support controllable irq inverter for each GIC SPI
+interrupt.
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible: should be one of:
+	"mediatek,mt8135-sysirq"
+	"mediatek,mt8127-sysirq"
+	"mediatek,mt6589-sysirq"
+	"mediatek,mt6582-sysirq"
+	"mediatek,mt6577-sysirq"
+- interrupt-controller : Identifies the node as an interrupt controller
+- #interrupt-cells : Must use the same cells/format as parent controller.
+- interrupt-parent: phandle of irq domain parent for sysirq.

I'm concerned that this sounds very general while the binding assumes
the GICv2 interrupt-specifier format. Either the driver needs to become
more general, or this needs to be tightened up.

It's also odd to say "irq domain parent", as that's purely a Linux
construct and has nothing to do with the HW.

The implementation expect the parent to use the same interrupt-cells
format as GIC. Based on the block diagram in the cover-letter, we could
say GIC is the irq parent of sysirq. So I'm planning to change to this,
hope this is OK.

- #interrupt-cells : Use the same format as specified by GIC in
  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
- interrupt-parent: phandle of irq parent for sysirq. The parent must
  use the same interrupt-cells format as GIC.

Joe.C