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

[Grant Likely]

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:04:52 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:17:01 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> It's going to get a little verbose once you start making multiple
> >> connections as you need one mux per wire. Perhaps it could be cleaned
> >> up by making the foo_irq_mux node(s) a child of foo?
> >
> > It could, but then you need some way of attaching a driver to that node,
> > and that would require building knowledge into the driver again.
> >
> > Can you boil it down to a couple of concrete examples? What is a
> > specific example of how the platform should decide which interrupt line
> > to use?
> >
> 
> So i've spent some time playing with this. I now have a booting kernel
> with multiple root interrupt controllers and peripheral devices
> multiply-connected to both root controllers. But only one on of the
> controllers is used by Linux (as linux being able to use multiple
> intcs is a non-trivial problem). So the scheme I am using is to have
> one of these root intc's marked as disabled via

Multiple intc's should be a solved problem. What issue are you seeing?
Or is this a microblaze specific problem?

> Working with Michal to get my patches in a list-ready state. Can you
> suggest a candidate tree we should base of for contributions to
> drivers/of/irq.c given your recent work?

Linux-next. It is always linux-next.  :-)

g.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/