On June 22, 2024 4:07:40 PM Alex Bee <knaerzche@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:And as you can see: It's already handled by the interrupt subsystem - all
Am 22.06.24 um 15:49 schrieb Arend Van Spriel:
On June 22, 2024 3:38:32 PM Arend Van SprielSure, if you insist on it, I can update the bindings document. So far not
<arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On June 22, 2024 12:56:02 AM Alex Bee <knaerzche@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This "new" version of defining external interrupts is around for a very
long time now and supported and preferred by irq_of_parse_and_map
respectively of_irq_parse_one.
Support it in brcmfmac as well by checking if either "interrupts" or
"interrupts-extended" property exists as indication if
irq_of_parse_and_map
should be called.
All very interesting, but why should we add code for something that
is not
specified in the bindings documentation?
NAK (for now). Feel free to update the bindings document.
many (no) users did that, as it is clearly specified as an alternative in
devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/interrupts.txt (sure, it's not yet
converted to yaml yet).
Right. So in my opinion that should be handled by the interrupt subsystem. Hence I dived into irq_of_parse_and_map(). I would suggest to open code that:
/* make sure there are interrupts defined in the node */Agreed. That's even better - I also didn't fully understand why this
- if (!of_property_present(np, "interrupts"))
+ if (of_irq_parse_one(...))
return;
irq = irq_create_of_mapping(...);I wouldn't want the 'nicer'-argument to be an argument, as I don't like
Which is a much nicer form, imho.
And by the way for instance
arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/qcom-apq8026-lg-lenok.dts already uses it that way
and the interrupt will currently not picked up (at least not by this
driver).
I expected the "nicer" argument would be thrown in at some point. Esthetics are never a technical argument, but let's not debate that ;-) Hopefully you can agree with my suggestion.
Regards,
Arend