Re: Subject: L2x0 OF properties do not include interrupt #

From: Rob Herring
Date: Thu Aug 11 2011 - 12:06:29 EST

On 08/11/2011 10:38 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 04:32:08PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 08:09 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 10 August 2011, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> I was hoping that it was possible to have separate properties which describe
>>>>> the interrupt. So you could have something like pmu-interrupt <75> and
>>>>> abort-interrupt <76> rather than interrupts <75, 76>.
>>>> Ok, I see.
>>>>> I've not played with DT bindings before though, so if it's usually done with
>>>>> an ordered list then so be it!
>>>> A lot of the code assumes that the property is called 'interrupts' and that
>>>> it contains a fixed-length array of interrupt numbers, each for one specific
>>>> purpose.
>>> Ok, I wondered if something like that might be the case.
>>>> Given that we have so many different meanings for the interrupts, I'm
>>>> not sure how this would work best in this case. According to
>>>> this looks like a nested interrupt controller, i.e. the L2CC has its own mask
>>>> and status register with bits for each one of them. We could model these by
>>>> describing the l2cc interrupt controller with these registers and listing all
>>>> nine of the current inputs. I suspect however that it would be easier to just
>>>> assume that there is only one line for now, and treat the l2cc as a single
>>>> interrupt source with an internal status register.
>>> Given that this binding is only for the l2x0 / pl310 and I don't know of any
>>> implementation where > 1 interrupt line is wired up, I'm happy to assume a
>>> single combined interrupt line for now.
>> I know of one. Although, we have the combined interrupt as well. The
>> binding should allow either way and specify the order. If the event
>> counter interrupt is 1st, then it should be the same to s/w.
> You mean putting the combined interrupt first? If so, we may as well just
> specify that until somebody builds a platform that doesn't have it.

No, either you have 1 interrupt and it is the combined one. or you have
the 9? separate interrupts. Having both combined and separate hooked up
is a bit dumb, so I would not worry about that case. I would just define
the event counter interrupt 1st as that is probably the primary use.
Also, I think that was the only interrupt on the L2x0 controllers IIRC.

It's also conceivable that some of the interrupts get routed somewhere
else rather than just into the GIC.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at