From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0212.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90D032C007A for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 05:37:32 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <1387219034.10013.360.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] powerpc/85xx/dts: add third elo3 dma component From: Scott Wood To: Hongbo Zhang Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:37:14 -0600 In-Reply-To: <52AEC40C.6000008@freescale.com> References: <1386760774-14743-1-git-send-email-Shengzhou.Liu@freescale.com> <52A9887D.3060109@freescale.com> <52AEC40C.6000008@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Liu Shengzhou-B36685 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 17:12 +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote: > On 12/13/2013 01:43 PM, Liu Shengzhou-B36685 wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Hongbo Zhang [mailto:hongbo.zhang@freescale.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:57 PM > >> To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Wood Scott- > >> B07421 > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] powerpc/85xx/dts: add third elo3 dma component > >> > >> Shengzhou, > >> I canceled my patch http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/295157/ because the > >> original wrong elo3-dma-2.dtsi hadn't been merged. > >> But please pay attention to comments from Scott about my changes of > >> adding 208 for some interrupts, and take some actions if needed, or > >> further discussions. > >> > >> Below comments form Scott: > >> "The FSL MPIC binding should be updated to point out how this works. > >> Technically it's not a change to the binding itself, since it's defined > >> in terms of register offset, but the explanatory text says "So interrupt > >> 0 is at offset 0x0, interrupt 1 is at offset 0x20, and so on." which is > >> not accurate for these new high interrupt numbers." > >> > > Hongbo, > > Could you update FSL MPIC binding as Scott pointed out? > > We only need to add more explanatory text after the sentence Scott > pointed out, like: > "But for some hardwares, the MPIC registers for interrupts are not > continuous in address, in such cases, an offset can be added to the > interrupt number to skip the registers which is not for interrupts." > > Scott, is that OK? Actually, I misread what that sentence actually says, and it's correct as is -- but not as helpful as it could be. I'd add this new paragraph instead: For example, internal interrupt 0 is at offset 0x200 and thus is interrupt 16 in the device tree. MSI bank A interrupt 0 is at offset 0x1c00, and thus is interrupt 224. MPIC v4.3 adds a new discontiguous address range for internal interrupts, so internal interrupt 160 is at offset 0x3000, and thus is interrupt 384. -Scott