Re: Question about shared interrupts in devicetree

[Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren-eS4NqCHxEME@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Geert,

> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org> hat am 9. April 2015 um 09:37
> geschrieben:
>
> [...]
> 
> >
> > Could you please explain the benefit / reason of this approach?
>
> Since you have different logical modules in the subsystem, this allows to
> model
> the subsystem as separate modules and a separate interrupt controller, and
> have separate drivers for all modules.
>
> Look at da9063 for an example (there are more according to "git grep irq_chip
> -- drivers/mfd", but not all of them may have DT bindings).
>

thanks for the hint, but this makes my patch series not really smaller. I
invested a lot of time (started in September 2014) and i want to submit at least
1 of the 3 drivers soon as possible.

I think the best approch would be to submit my series with option B as a
proposal. In the discussion about the patch it would be easier to decide if a
interrupt controller is really necessary.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like
> that.
> -- Linus Torvalds

Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html