Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:06:35 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:04:52 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:17:01 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

It's going to get a little verbose once you start making multiple
connections as you need one mux per wire. Perhaps it could be cleaned
up by making the foo_irq_mux node(s) a child of foo?

It could, but then you need some way of attaching a driver to that node,
and that would require building knowledge into the driver again.

Can you boil it down to a couple of concrete examples? What is a
specific example of how the platform should decide which interrupt line
to use?

So i've spent some time playing with this. I now have a booting kernel
with multiple root interrupt controllers and peripheral devices
multiply-connected to both root controllers. But only one on of the
controllers is used by Linux (as linux being able to use multiple
intcs is a non-trivial problem). So the scheme I am using is to have
one of these root intc's marked as disabled via

Multiple intc's should be a solved problem. What issue are you seeing?
Or is this a microblaze specific problem?

It's multiple root (i.e. have no explicit parent) interrupt
controllers. And linux
doesnt respect status = "disabled" for interrupt controllers at all it seems.

That can be fixed.  :-)

g.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html