From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: Tegra DRM device tree bindings Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:31:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20120626193145.GB5247@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> References: <20120626105513.GA9552@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <4FE9B291.2020305@nvidia.com> <20120626134122.GA1115@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <4FE9F4CA.10907@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XF85m9dhOBO43t/C" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FE9F4CA.10907-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: Terje =?utf-8?Q?Bergstr=C3=B6m?= , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , "dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --XF85m9dhOBO43t/C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:43:38AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/26/2012 07:41 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:01:05PM +0300, Terje Bergstr=C3=B6m wrote: > >> On 26.06.2012 13:55, Thierry Reding wrote: > ... > >>> status =3D "disabled"; > >>>=20 > >>> gart =3D <&gart>; > >>>=20 > >>> /* video-encoding/decoding */ mpe { reg =3D <0x54040000 > >>> 0x00040000>; interrupts =3D <0 68 0x04>; status =3D "disabled"; }; > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> The client device interrupts are not very interesting, so they > >> could be left out, too. Display controller related are probably > >> an exception to this. > >=20 > > If the interrupts aren't used at all we should drop them. >=20 > I disagree here; "used" is most likely something specific to a > particular OS's drivers. The HW always has the interrupts, and hence > they should be described in DT. Okay, I see. Does the same apply to the COP interrupts of the host1x node in your opinion? I don't know if it makes sense to describe something that's not reachable from the CPU. Yet it is defined in the GIC. Thierry --XF85m9dhOBO43t/C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP6g4hAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhv3kQALuGSZG57HasyAPLjFXufm4A DJumKor8TTAZSFUfnolpiCk+gBCyvFRzzyU3Kb+fzKbtm7z/4joLNY6slS/fGnhK IxmW4lltQbQpZ/yeTw3+/2tH37Q0GwIwdQqGVwgsGkJNj7n53B2KfsxRqTE5A2gl xxq3+RYjAzzaP0KEeTqzS8ynCk+ZO4gHfzdj2k/BHz5/efxi6C5cxjRBQk/7C6Cg Dsvh+tiyF2BK6PC3j2Mtb0MNld+G9FKJCLi0J/CQ50/yqUz/VrhZcG/i7jZVh9Sl Kqpq7E7IRE+wZerYvJUssb4Zd0868kOa0+BfFHQ4Q+NMgJE1Da0J4SHmxc787V/w lfsfn9hr8tC+e6Sd6o4I2fa/bHXyXjHQmEdbs3ZtQ5mloNkfNVIL/MWPS2jlc9KH xGCLLvMm807FMdcztXQ7i3dVhiFzzDnIgR20vgcgRxxCTUHh/IdPVeDz1ShvjBvS 2tvzJBq0Duq1olcwBQJjXE/irwJU4x43lknnZOLbQYo0mw/n+dmYyB0jKYIPC7ru GowM3gx2tv/TQr1NsTGrkQCxp5TUKSalgiziRlxeG5lWoFeG8cJVgppRJ01Mkem1 0jJBM3WKWK6MTvye7cQUPMnDO7xSKqN0diBaMF3e5UHnhMNo1OxXzBzyXZVgAY/n kNKi8L+mM+SxdjfGkDuI =qTKP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XF85m9dhOBO43t/C--