From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:22:29 +0200 Subject: How to create IRQ mappings in a GPIO driver that doesn't control its IRQ domain ? In-Reply-To: <20130725131556.GD9858@sirena.org.uk> References: <1624911.6TtmtVmU1T@avalon> <1408178.cxAUTUGJc5@avalon> <20130725131556.GD9858@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <1681089.qGWOhLKTTo@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Mark, On Thursday 25 July 2013 14:15:56 Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:45:33AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > The two devices are independent, so there's no real parent/child > > relationship. However, as Grant proposed, I could list all the interrupts > > associated with GPIOs in the GPIO controller DT node. I would then just > > call irq_of_parse_and_map() in the .to_irq() handler to magically > > translate the GPIO number to a mapped IRQ number. > > > > The number of interrupts can be pretty high (up to 58 in the worst case so > > far), so an alternative would be to specify the interrupt-parent only, and > > call irq_create_of_mapping() directly. What solution would you prefer ? > > Are the interrupts in a contiguous block in the controller so you can just > pass around the controller and a base number? In two of the three SoCs I need to fix they are. I've just realized that in the last one the interrupts are in two contiguous blocks in two different parents. I will thus need at least a list of . Our standard interrupt bindings don't seem to support multiple parents, is that something that we want to fix or should I go for custom bindings ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: