From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: Subject: L2x0 OF properties do not include interrupt # Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:28:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20110810142808.GL10121@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <000201cc575b$c1229010$4367b030$@rutland@arm.com> <4E428EB0.1080204@gmail.com> <20110810141048.GK10121@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201108101624.27881.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201108101624.27881.arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Mark Rutland , "linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "workgroup.linux-kQvG35nSl+M@public.gmane.org" , "weizeng.he-kQvG35nSl+M@public.gmane.org" , "tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:24:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 10 August 2011, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:59:12PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > > > I think you should allow for either the single irq or individual irqs. > > > You can specify that the event counter interrupt must be first, then the > > > pmu driver could work either way ignoring the rest. The driver probably > > > needs to mark the handler as shared if there is only the combined > > > interrupt unless you expect all interrupts to be handled by 1 driver. > > > > I much prefer having seperate, individual IRQs with no requirement on > > ordering. > > > > What do you mean with 'no requirement on ordering'? If we have multiple > interrupt sources, we definitely want to identify which one calls which > handler, and the only information we have is the position in the array > of interrupt numbers. I was hoping that it was possible to have separate properties which describe the interrupt. So you could have something like pmu-interrupt <75> and abort-interrupt <76> rather than interrupts <75, 76>. I've not played with DT bindings before though, so if it's usually done with an ordered list then so be it! Will