Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: document new interrupt-array property

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:30:20 +0100

> Sure, for every specific case one can envision a more neat
> and compact device tree ;-P

Still... I do think that even in the general case, providing a way to
directly encode pairs <parent,specifier> is useful, especially when
interrupt are wired in all sort of crazy ways as is common in the
embedded world.
 
> If in a certain tree you have this "problem" with not only
> the MAL but with lots of devices, you could introduce a
> "fake" interrupt nexus that doesn't represent a physical
> device as such, but that represents the combined cascaded
> interrupt controllers, and maps the interrupts to the nodes
> for the "physical" interrupt controllers.  Just don't make
> the mistake of putting an "interrupt-controller" property
> in there and all is just fine.  As an added bonus you end up
> with one single namespace for the interrupts (one interrupt
> domain in interrupt-mapping speak), which is probably what
> the chip documentation does as well.
> 
> 
> Segher
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev