Re: [RFC 9/9] of/irq: create interrupts-extended property

[Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:06:35 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 17:04:52 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:17:01 +1000, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com> wrote:
> >> >> It's going to get a little verbose once you start making multiple
> >> >> connections as you need one mux per wire. Perhaps it could be cleaned
> >> >> up by making the foo_irq_mux node(s) a child of foo?
> >> >
> >> > It could, but then you need some way of attaching a driver to that node,
> >> > and that would require building knowledge into the driver again.
> >> >
> >> > Can you boil it down to a couple of concrete examples? What is a
> >> > specific example of how the platform should decide which interrupt line
> >> > to use?
> >> >
> >>
> >> So i've spent some time playing with this. I now have a booting kernel
> >> with multiple root interrupt controllers and peripheral devices
> >> multiply-connected to both root controllers. But only one on of the
> >> controllers is used by Linux (as linux being able to use multiple
> >> intcs is a non-trivial problem). So the scheme I am using is to have
> >> one of these root intc's marked as disabled via
> >
> > Multiple intc's should be a solved problem. What issue are you seeing?
> > Or is this a microblaze specific problem?
> >
> 
> It's multiple root (i.e. have no explicit parent) interrupt
> controllers. And linux
> doesnt respect status = "disabled" for interrupt controllers at all it seems.

That can be fixed.  :-)

g.