From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Anholt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] irqchip: bcm2835: If a parent interrupt is registered, chain from it. Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:17:20 -0700 Message-ID: <87bnf4giq7.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> References: <1436837718-956-1-git-send-email-eric@anholt.net> <1436837718-956-3-git-send-email-eric@anholt.net> <55AEFB1D.6090108@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55AEFB1D.6090108@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephen Warren writes: > On 07/13/2015 07:35 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> The BCM2836 (Raspberry Pi 2) uses two levels of interrupt handling >> with the CPU-local interrupts being the root, so we need to register >> ours as chained off of the CPU's local interrupt. > > Sorry for the slow review; laziness after vacation! > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/brcm= ,bcm2835-armctrl-ic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-contr= oller/brcm,bcm2835-armctrl-ic.txt > >> +The BCM2836 contains the same interrupt controller with the same >> +interrupts, but the per-CPU interrupt controller is the root, and an >> +interrupt there indicates that the ARMCTRL has an interrupt to handle. >> + >> Required properties: >>=20=20 >> - compatible : should be "brcm,bcm2835-armctrl-ic" > > Since there are some differences between the bcm2835 and bcm2836 HW > blocks, I'd expect the compatible value to be different for each. In > particular... Well, there are actually no differences within this block of the HW (HDL is unmodified), it's just where the output interrupt line gets consumed. But it's not much extra to add a new compatible value, so sure. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVr94wAAoJELXWKTbR/J7okMMP/ROhC6tVFG+0muGe49YHDR/0 wcueUIsl8794I7BKyCqU0aHpNa83J5AFZHLQ+P3MuzGposghc/kv6OxIX8WLIIFo 3tPUb4NhtUc+4Ie4frYgjhGixmUPIquxZZEL//cVJomFD90f9Od4amqC08sqAkPb /X5UvuFXEPa3TrbSyORzOKU//2TrIM8CrWUUSIxboqVKDFskGwgVr0QmPgL+BucY CqHodGjiXr8Bu9A/VxJeigfvcWLiJmpnpbayP8qZrBuXGvW6C3fcz26KilgiOwTB MNkguBDyiOGnvQ9nfJmGRJUJbZ/5KYOGgRnszhOeLommiTI/mzh8xjmAD0fctkU4 2ZUCybzvTyAdOskGzHYfL5fgUKGEG3uIc6k7UpaJcDWoIl+AKCQYdN4HSWdZC0bk uaoBi0PnFPE3ECfWozLS7IbdLqx5M2xmNW0+TflwGUM9JK3/qg59+HDbVzQsUpJ8 hbijvBz84f0PVONG7RmqaSFSi9jT8PdHxzW2CUjOIdAPvJZNf6gI5FQJXp56nMRB +lYNKzKRL/CXXeRlxo8jHJeGAWECDjdxXOyapDk97ESzmZd2LxtaBraqCHk5u5BB z41Wq/17i+HIWx56WOjO0KkroYCWKddPp4FDgB3XrLN/99eFmfMEIBQW9mOLiCKL SlYcbFtyLW0OY1EVeXle =spQE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--