From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752381Ab1HJO2l (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:28:41 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:50056 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780Ab1HJO2k (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:28:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:28:08 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "weizeng.he@csr.com" , "workgroup.linux@csr.com" , "'Barry Song'" <21cnbao@gmail.com>, "'Grant Likely'" , "'Olof Johansson'" Subject: Re: Subject: L2x0 OF properties do not include interrupt # Message-ID: <20110810142808.GL10121@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <000201cc575b$c1229010$4367b030$@rutland@arm.com> <4E428EB0.1080204@gmail.com> <20110810141048.GK10121@e102144-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201108101624.27881.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201108101624.27881.arnd@arndb.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:24:27PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 10 August 2011, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:59:12PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > > > I think you should allow for either the single irq or individual irqs. > > > You can specify that the event counter interrupt must be first, then the > > > pmu driver could work either way ignoring the rest. The driver probably > > > needs to mark the handler as shared if there is only the combined > > > interrupt unless you expect all interrupts to be handled by 1 driver. > > > > I much prefer having seperate, individual IRQs with no requirement on > > ordering. > > > > What do you mean with 'no requirement on ordering'? If we have multiple > interrupt sources, we definitely want to identify which one calls which > handler, and the only information we have is the position in the array > of interrupt numbers. 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>. I've not played with DT bindings before though, so if it's usually done with an ordered list then so be it! Will