From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:59:55 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v5 4/7] arm: omap4: hwmod: introduce emu hwmod In-Reply-To: <20111111114735.GC5114@totoro> References: <1319467559-5518-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <1319467559-5518-5-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <20111111114147.GE12410@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20111111114735.GC5114@totoro> Message-ID: <20111111115955.GG12410@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:47:35AM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:41:47AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > The issue stems from the fact that we have to route the PMU interrupts to > > the correct CPU manually (I think only MSM routes them as PPIs, which is > > clearly the correct thing to do). To do this, we expect the IRQ resources to > > be laid out in CPU order. In hindsight, maybe naming the resources might > > have been a good idea, but them we'd still have to generate the names using > > CPU numbers when iterating through the platform device. > > There isn't yet a way to do naming of resources with DT, and although I > think there was a proposal for doing named register resources I don't > think this has been accepted and there wasn't anything for IRQ > resources... That's good news - means I have an excuse other than laziness for not implementing this for perf :) Will