[PATCH v3 03/11] clocksource: sp804: add device tree support

[Haojian Zhuang]

On 13 March 2013 22:55, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 14:51 +0000, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 03/13/2013 09:42 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 14:17 +0000, Rob Herring wrote:
>> >> How about:
>> >>
>> >> 1 irq - TIMINT1
>> >> 2 irqs w/ same source # - TIMINTC
>> >> 2 irqs w/ different source # - TIMINT1 and TIMINT2
>> >>
>> >> I'm not completely sure if Linux and the irq domain code handles the
>> >> same interrupt source repeated. It should because that is basically a
>> >> shared irq line.
>> >>
>> >> If we ever see only TIMINT2 connected we can add a property for that,
>> >> but I think that case is unlikely.
>> >
>> > I was rather thinking about using the "interrupt-names" property and
>> > naming them explicitly, eg:
>> >
>> >     interrupt-names = "timint1", "timint2";
>> >     interrupts = <1>, <2>;
>> >
>> >     interrupt-names = "timint1";
>> >     interrupts = <1>;
>> >
>> >     interrupt-names = "timint2";
>> >     interrupts = <2>;
>> >
>> >     interrupt-names = "timintc";
>> >     interrupts = <3>;
>> >
>> > But now I see that of_amba_device_create() doesn't do anything about it
>> > (platform device would use them as resource name so we could use
>> > platform_get_resource_byname), so I'm not sure any more...
>>
>> The interrupt-names property should not be required and without it here
>> you cannot determine the configuration.
>
> It is not required by the standard interrupt bindings. But it could be
> required by the SP804 binding, couldn't it? (like any other property)
> "Encoding" the information by specific organization of the field makes
> it "invisible to the naked eye".
>
> Not that I have any strong feelings about it.
>
> Paweł
>
>

What's the scenario that we must use TIMINTC? TIMINT1 & TIMINT2 are
already enough on these two TIMERs. If we really needn't TIMINTC, we
need to support it. Since it's over-designed.

If TIMINT1 & TIMINT2 aren't routed, and only TIMINTC is routed. It's another
case. We can consider it as replacement of TIMINT1.

Regards
Haojian