From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031176AbdAJInE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 03:43:04 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170]:35205 "EHLO mail-qk0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030989AbdAJInA (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 03:43:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1483744980-25898-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> <1483744980-25898-2-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> From: Linus Walleij Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:42:59 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: gpio: Add binding documentation for gpio-thunderx To: David Daney Cc: David Daney , Alexandre Courbot , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Daney Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:44 PM, David Daney wrote: > On 01/09/2017 11:36 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> +Optional Properties: >>> +- compatible: "cavium,thunder-8890-gpio", unused as PCI driver binding >>> is used. >>> +- interrupt-controller: Marks the device node as an interrupt >>> controller. >>> +- #interrupt-cells: Must be present and have value of 2 if >>> + "interrupt-controller" is present. >>> + - First cell is the GPIO pin number relative to the controller. >>> + - Second cell is triggering flags as defined in interrupts.txt. >> >> >> AFAICT this device has an optional list of interrupts as well? >> One per pin even? > > I'm not sure I understand your question. > > The GPIO hardware supports an interrupt on each pin. The underlying > interrupt mechanism is via PCI MSI-X, which are fully discoverable by the > driver, so lack of device tree binding for the these underlying MSI-X is > fully appropriate. Sorry I guess I'm just ignorant about how PCI works, that has never been my strongest subject admittedly. So what you're saying is that PCI devices do not need specifying interrupts not interrupt parents in the device tree? That's fine then. Yours, Linus Walleij