Hi Marc,
@@ -244,8 +295,14 @@ static int pruss_intc_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return -ENOMEM;
ÂÂÂÂ for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUM_HOST_IRQS; i++) {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (intc->invalid_intr & BIT(i))
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ continue;
+
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, irq_names[i]);
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (irq <= 0) {
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (intc->shared_intr & BIT(i))
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ continue;
I don't really understand why you are treating these "shared" interrupts
differently from the invalid ones. In all cases, they shouldn't be used.
The behavior is the same in how we handle it, but the difference is
that an "invalid" one is never even connected to the ARM interrupt
controller, while the "shared" one is a choice. So, unless this
interrupt is being used/handled by a different processor/entity, you
would not see this skipped from the dts node.
And I'm saying that all that matters is that you are discarding these
interrupts. Whether they are flagged invalid or shared, they are not
available to Linux. So the difference in handling is pointless and
only makes it harder to understand what you are doing.
The primary reason for using two properties and this logic was to
accurately describe the h/w and usage of these in the DT bindings to
distinguish the "never connected" vs the "optionally can be skipped"
interrupts rather than go by how these are handled in the driver. I
feel we will loose this description and make it confusing for SoC
product integration developers.