Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization

[Grant Likely]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 04:23:40PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 11:43 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > I see 2 options (besides leaving it as is):
> > 
> > - Revert back to my previous binding where PPIs are a sub-node and a
> > different interrupt parent.
> > 
> > - Use the current binding, but allow SPIs to start at 0. We can still
> > distinguish PPIs and SPIs by the cpu mask cell. A cpu mask of 0 is a
> > SPI. If there was ever a reason to have a cpu mask for an SPI, you would
> > not be able to with this scheme.
> > 
> > Either way you will still have the above issue with the cell size changing.
> > 
> 
> I was headed down the path of implementing the 2nd option above, but had
> a dilemma. What would be the numbering base for PPIs in this case?
> Should it be 0 in the DT as proposed for SPIs or does it stay at 16?
> Numbering PPIs at 0 will just cause confusion as will numbering
> differently from SPIs. There is absolutely no mention of SPI0 or SPIx
> numbering in the GIC spec. All interrupt number references refer to the
> absolute interrupt ID, not a relative number based on the type.

Hi Rob,

See here[1] and [2] (figures 3.14 and 3.16).  In both cases, there is
clearly a reference to PPI numbering from 0-15 and SPI numbering from
0-987 (as inputs to the distributor block).

[1] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0416b/Bhacbfdb.html
[2] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.ddi0416b/Cihebcbg.html

g.
--
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/