15 Aug
2017
15 Aug
'17
3:56 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:51:40PM +0800, Ryder Lee wrote:
On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 12:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
What harm does having the extra information in the bindings do? If it's possible there might be a use for the extra interrupt it seems better to have people describe it.
Yes you're right. The current driver get IRQ number by index "0" but actually it should be "1" (GIC 132). Perhaps we can switch to use the platform_get_irq_byname() and add interrupt-name in DT so that binding can be agnostic of the IRQ order.
Yes, that's generally good - it also means that if future revisions of the IP have different sets of interrupts the binding can adapt gracefully.