From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757502Ab3K1H2x (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:28:53 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]:57396 "EHLO mail-wi0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752552Ab3K1H2s (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:28:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20131127141750.B666EC404EC@trevor.secretlab.ca> References: <1381869563-16083-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> <20131127141750.B666EC404EC@trevor.secretlab.ca> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:28:47 +1000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: g9SbGdNtwyz78d3mX7higJbmyLI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property From: Peter Crosthwaite To: Grant Likely Cc: Michal Simek , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:06:35 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >> > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:04:52 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:17:01 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite 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? >> > >> >> It's multiple root (i.e. have no explicit parent) interrupt >> controllers. And linux >> doesnt respect status = "disabled" for interrupt controllers at all it seems. > > That can be fixed. :-) > Patches on list. Regards, Peter > g. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/