Re: [PATCH 1/4] Document: DT: Add bindings for mediatek MT6797 SoC Platform
From: Mars Cheng
Date: Thu Sep 08 2016 - 10:09:07 EST
Thanks for your review. the response inlined.
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 13:37 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 08/09/16 11:49, Mars Cheng wrote:
> > This adds DT binding documentation for Mediatek MT6797.
> > Signed-off-by: Mars Cheng <mars.cheng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/mediatek,sysirq.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/mediatek,sysirq.txt
> > index 9d1d72c..3d97eb4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/mediatek,sysirq.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/mediatek,sysirq.txt
> > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Required properties:
> > "mediatek,mt8173-sysirq"
> > "mediatek,mt8135-sysirq"
> > "mediatek,mt8127-sysirq"
> > + "mediatek,mt6797-sysirq"
> > "mediatek,mt6795-sysirq"
> > "mediatek,mt6755-sysirq"
> > "mediatek,mt6592-sysirq"
> > @@ -21,7 +22,8 @@ Required properties:
> > - interrupt-parent: phandle of irq parent for sysirq. The parent must
> > use the same interrupt-cells format as GIC.
> > - reg: Physical base address of the intpol registers and length of memory
> > - mapped region.
> > + mapped region. Could be up to 2 registers here at max. Ex: 6797 needs 2 reg,
> > + others need 1.
> Two things:
> - Please make this a separate patch that can be reviewed independently
> of the rest of the changes, which are just adding new compatible
Will fix this in the next patch set.
> - Why can't you simply expose it as a separate controller? Looking at
> the way you're changing the corresponding driver, it looks like you're
> simply adding an extra base/size. If you simply had a base for the
> corresponding GIC interrupts, you could handle as many region as you
> want, and have a more generic driver.
May I know the meaning of "simply expose it as a separate controller"?
Or you might like to suggest me any similar driver as a reference? I
will examine it. Current design is based on the fact: We expect
irq-mtk-sysirq needs the optional second base but the third one will not
If we really need more than 2 bases, we can figure out a more generic
driver at the time, right?