On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:46:43AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > driver. A user _has_ to setup irq, if there is none, he still has to set > > irq=UIO_IRQ_NONE. For that matter, 'not specified' and 'not found' is both > > the same bad thing. > > Hmm, what should I do? > > A typical interrupts-property in a device-tree is specified as: > > interrupts = <&irq_controller_node irq_number irq_sense>; > > Something like UIO_IRQ_NONE does not fit into this scheme, even more as it is > Linux-specific and device trees need to be OS independant. > > I'm pretty sure the correct way to state that you don't need an interrupt in > the device-tree is to simply not specify the above interrupt property. > > Well, yes, that means you can't distinguish between 'forgotten' and > 'intentionally left out'. I wonder if it is really that bad? If something does > not work (= one is missing interrupts), the first place to look at is the > device tree. If one does not see an interrupt-property, voila, problem solved. > > (Note that with my latest suggestion, a _wrong_ interrupt is handled the same > way as with platform_data. request_irq() should equally fail if the > return-value from irq_of_parse_and_map() is simply forwarded.)
I agree. And assuming Alan is right, forget what I said about IRQ 0 being a valid interrupt number. Thanks, Hans > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
