Re: [PATCH v4 01/26] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add Arm GICv5

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 16:53, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Specifically, for IRS/ITS frames then - what the current schema does is
> correct, namely, it does _not_ spell out whether the IRS/ITS config
> frame is NS/S/Realm/Root interrupt domain, that's information that the
> client implicitly assumes.
>
> Are we OK with this approach ? This would leave open the possibility
> of having a DT per security-state.
>
> If in the DT schema I define eg reg -> "IRS NS config frame" by
> construction the binding can't be used for anything else.
>
> Please let me know if we are in agreement on this matter.

This would break the QEMU virt board -> EL3 guest firmware ->
EL1 Linux flow. We need a binding which lets us optionally
specify "oh by the way here is where the other non-NS frames are".
I don't have a strong view on the specific syntax.

-- PMM