On Thursday 03 February 2011, Meador Inge wrote: > In a recent discussion [1, 2] concerning device trees for AMP systems, the > question of whether we really need 'protected-sources' arose. The general > consensus was that if you don't want a source to be used, then it should *not* > be mentioned in an 'interrupts' property. If a source really needs to be > mentioned, then it should be put in a property other than 'interrupts' with > a specific binding for that use case. > > [1] > http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2011-January/004038.html > [2] > http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2011-January/003991.html
That doesn't work in the case that this code was written for: http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg01394.html The problem is that you don't want the mpic to initialize the interrupt line to the default, but instead leave it at whatever the boot firmware has set up. Note that interrupt is not listed in any "interrupts" property of any of the devices on the CPU interpreting the device tree, but it may be mentioned in the device tree that another CPU uses to access the same MPIC. Arnd _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
