Re: [PATCH] RFC: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 10/20/2013 01:41 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Grant,
> 
> On Tuesday 17 September 2013 17:36:32 Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:57:00 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>> Am 12.09.2013 17:19, schrieb Stephen Warren:
>>>> IRQs, DMA channels, and GPIOs are all different things. Their bindings
>>>> are defined independently. While it's good to define new types of
>>>> bindings consistently with other bindings, this hasn't always happened,
>>>> so you can make zero assumptions about the IRQ bindings by reading the
>>>> documentation for any other kind of binding.
>>>>
>>>> Multiple interrupts are defined as follows:
>>>> 	// Optional; otherwise inherited from parent/grand-parent/...
>>>> 	interrupt-parent = <&gpio6>;
>>>> 	// Must be in a fixed order, unless binding defines that the
>>>> 	// optional interrupt-names property is to be used.
>>>> 	interrupts = <1 IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH> <2 IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW>;
>>>> 	// Optional; binding for device defines whether it must
>>>> 	// be present
>>>> 	interrupt-names = "foo", "bar";
>>>>
>>>> If you need multiple interrupts, each with a different parent, you need
>>>> to use an interrupt-map property...
...
>> Actually, I think it is solveable but doing so requires a new binding
>> for interrupts. I took a shot at implementing it earlier this week and
>> I've got working patches that I'll be posting soon. I created a new
>> "interrupts-extended" property that uses a phandle+args type of
>> binding like this:
...
>> device@3000 {
>> 	interrupts-extended = <&intc1 5> <&intc2 3 4> <&intc1 6>;
>> };
...
> Any progress on this ? I'll need to use multiple interrupts with different 
> parents in the near future, I can take this over if needed.
> 
> I've also been thinking that we could possibly reuse the "interrupts" property 
> without defining a new "interrupts-extended". When parsing the property the 
> code would use the current DT bindings if an interrupt-parent is present, and 
> the new DT bindings if it isn't.

interrupt-parents doesn't have to be present in individual nodes; it can
be inherited from the parent. That means you'd have to convert whole
sub-trees at once. It seems much more flexible to use a new property and
hence make it explicit what format the data is in.