[PATCH 3/7] ARM: exynos: add missing properties for combiner IRQs
Arnd Bergmann
arnd at arndb.de
Mon Apr 15 04:41:44 EDT 2013
On Monday 15 April 2013, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> On 12 April 2013 19:33, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > combiner:interrupt-controller at 10440000 {
> > + combiner-nr = <16>;
>
> I think this should be "samsung,combiner-nr"
> Without this i see the following message in boot log:
> "combiner_of_init: number of combiners not specified"
Right, thanks!
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4212.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4212.dtsi
> > index 36d4299..f83c3c1 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4212.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4212.dtsi
> > @@ -26,6 +26,15 @@
> > cpu-offset = <0x8000>;
> > };
> >
> > + interrupt-controller at 10440000 {
>
> Don't we need a node name here (combiner:interrupt-controller at 10440000)?
Why? The "combiner:" part is just a label. Actually I think the preferred
syntax is
&combiner {
samsung,combiner-nr = <18>;
};
which is much shorter to write, but I did not want to change the style used
in the rest of the file.
> > + combiner-nr = <18>;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> nit: tabs instead of space would look better.
I fixed that up locally, but I think I sent out the wrong version.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4412.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4412.dtsi
> > index d75c047..4cb657e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4412.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4412.dtsi
> > @@ -26,6 +26,15 @@
> > cpu-offset = <0x4000>;
> > };
> >
> > + interrupt-controller at 10440000 {
> > + combiner-nr = <20>;
> Same as above (for exynos4212.dtsi).
>
> > + interrupts = <0 0 0>, <0 1 0>, <0 2 0>, <0 3 0>,
> > + <0 4 0>, <0 5 0>, <0 6 0>, <0 7 0>,
> > + <0 8 0>, <0 9 0>, <0 10 0>, <0 11 0>,
> > + <0 12 0>, <0 13 0>, <0 14 0>, <0 15 0>,
> > + <0 107 0>, <0 108 0>>, <0 48 0>, <0 42 0>;
> ^^^
> Syntax error.
>
> We have a combiner node defined in exynos4x12.dtsi. With the bindings
> now defined separately in 4212 and 4412 dtsi files, probably the one
> in 4x12 could be dropped?
I did not see that one, but it seems to have the wrong numbers in the last
four interrupt specifiers. I think it would be better to just fix that one
and keep using it.
Arnd
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list