Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property

From: Rob Herring
Date: Sun Oct 27 2013 - 16:24:14 EST

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:39:23 +0100, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The standard interrupts property in device tree can only handle
>> interrupts coming from a single interrupt parent. If a device is wired
>> to multiple interrupt controllers, then it needs to be attached to a
>> node with an interrupt-map property to demux the interrupt specifiers
>> which is confusing. It would be a lot easier if there was a form of the
>> interrupts property that allows for a separate interrupt phandle for
>> each interrupt specifier.
>> This patch does exactly that by creating a new interrupts-extended
>> property which reuses the phandle+arguments pattern used by GPIOs and
>> other core bindings.
>> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Alright, I want to merge this one. I've got an Ack from Tony, general
> agreement from an in person converstaion from Ben (aside from wishing he
> could think of a better property name), and various rumblings of
> approval from anyone I talked to about it at ksummit. I'd like to have
> something more that that to put into the commit text. Please take a look
> and let me know if you agree/disagree with this binding.

I think it looks fine, but I'll throw out an alternative proposal.
Simply allow for interrupt-parent to be an array in equal size to
interrupts property. Then it is a minimal change to the existing

interrupt-parent = <&intc1>, <&intc2>;
interrupts = <5 0>, <6 0>;

Of course interrupts-extended is more inline with standard patterns
for bindings.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at