Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] of/irq: create interrupts-extended-2 property

On 12:02 Tue 21 Jan     , Mark Rutland wrote:

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:03:23AM +0000, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:12:24 +0000, Mark Rutland [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Another, more invasive option would be extend the dts syntax and teach
dtc to handle property appending. Then the soc dts could stay as it is,
and the board dts could have something like:

    /append-property/ interrupts = <&intc1 6 1>;
    /append-property/ interrupt-names = "board-specific-irq";

Both these options solve the issue at the source, are general to other
properties, and allow more than one level of hierarchy (the proposed
interrupts-extended-2 only allows one level).

I've just had a go at implementing the append-property mechanism above
in dtc, and it was far easier than I expected (patch below).

Does anyone have any issues with the /append-property/ idea?

I think that is reasonable.

The main problem with this (same for clocks) is if you need to append
something with a name when the original didn't have any.

Can you not just add a name in the original file? I assume we're not
going to use this to adjust dts files we're not already in full control
of.

quoted

Reordering entries might not work for interrupts, since the bindings
might have requirements on order.

That's a fair point.

Do we currently have any optional/board-specific interrupts which must
appear at the start or middle of the list?

For those, could we add names? The kernel should be abel to fall back to
ordering if names aren't present, and we can recommend a particular
ordering for compatiblity with older kernels.

As a general preventative measure it would be nice to have named
elements whenever elements can be optional.

I never was a fanof index search I do agree the names irq is the best way

quoted

I'm not aware of a good solution for this. Suggestions welcome.

Me neither. Prepending and appending is easy.

Inserting and/or modifying the list requires knowledge of the size of
each element (and for variable-sized entries requires knowledge of the
particular binding, which we cannot embed in dtc). 

I suspect adding richer syntax for modifying properties in arbitrary
ways will devolve into a turing tarpit.

no this need to stay simple if too much complexe => mess up, unmaintainable

if you really have complex stuff duplicate the info

Best Regards,
J.

Thanks,
Mark.