On Monday 25 March 2013, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I think you can just make this:
>
> mpic: interrupt-controller@d0020000 {
> ...
> };
>
> ...
>
> soc {
> pcie-controller {
> marvell,msi = <&mpic>;
> };
> };
>
> And everything else should just work given the APIs I mentioned. But as
> you said it'd be good if somebody else could share their opinion about
> this.
I think the property referring to the msi controller should have a fixed
name, such as "msi-parent", to go along with "interrupt-parent".
Similarly, I would suggest using an empty "msi-controller" property
to mark the controller that is capable of serving MSIs. The Linux
implementation doesn't currently require the "interrupt-controller"
property, but I think it's good to stay close to the original interrupt
binding here for consistency.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
