[RFC PATCH 1/1] of/irq: create interrupts-extended-2 property

[Rob Herring]

Fixing DT list address...

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:40:41PM +0000, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>> On 12:17 Wed 15 Jan     , Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:47:25AM +0000, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>> > > The new interrupts-extended property, which reuses the phandle+arguments
>>> > > pattern used by GPIOs and other core bindings, still have some issue.
>>> > >
>>> > > If an SoC have already specifiy interrupt and a board want to add specific
>>> > > interrupt such as GPIO (which can be optionnal) be need to re-define
>>> > > interrupts-extended. So allow to have an optionnale interrupts-extended-2
>>> > > property.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > NAK.
>>> >
>>> > This is a hack that works around a dts organisation issue. This is _not_
>>> > a binding or parsing issue.
>>>
>>> So the DT is stupid. Yes w have board and SoC information
>>> so we do not want to duplicate them. Having a way to descript SoC vs board
>>> specific information need to be provided.
>>
>> I agree that the current situation isn't fantastic. That doesn't make
>> the DT stupid. There are other solutions to this problem.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Properties can be overridden - just describe all of the interrupts in
>>> > the final dts file.
>>> this is wrong, which mean you duplicate informaation and duplicate bug and
>>> fixes
>>
>> It's certainly not nice, but it doesn't make it wrong.
>>
>> The same problem can be found with any other list property that varies
>> per-board. Hacking the parsing of each property is not a solution.
>>
>> Today the only way to implement what you want is to have the list in the
>> final file.
>>
>> One way of working with that would be to have the common interrupts
>> described in a shared macro in the soc file:
>>
>> #define SOC_COMMON_INTERRUPTS <&intc1 5 1>, <&intc2 1 0>
>
> Yuck. Please, let's not encourage this pattern.
>
>> Then the soc file can have:
>>
>>         interrupts = SOC_COMMON_INTERRUPTS;
>>
>> And the board can have:
>>
>>         interrupts = SOC_COMMON_INTERRUPTS, <&intc1 6 1>;
>
> Unless this is solved in dtc include mechanism, just duplicate the
> interrupts in each board file. I'd rather have the duplication than
> continued churn of refactoring dtsi files.
>
> Rob