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

[Peter Crosthwaite]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
>

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.

I'll send the patches tmrw.

Regards,
Peter
--
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/