RFC: proposal to extend the open-pic interrupt specifier definition

[Segher Boessenkool]

> The current open-pic binding defines that interrupt specifiers
> have 2 cells-- an interrupt number and level/sense encoding.
>
> With chips like the P4080 this is no longer sufficient to
> represent the various types of interrupt sources handled by
> the interrupt controller.  A linear list of interrupt numbers
> doesn't handle all interrupt types-- there are at least 4 different
> kinds of interrupts on the P4080.
>
> We have a proposal to extend the open-pic binding in
> a backwards compatible way to encode additional information
> in the level/sense field.

Why can you not have a particular "compatible" for your device,
i.e. have a new binding for it?  Changing the "base" binding is
asking for trouble.

You can of course base your binding on the openpic one.

> The advantage of the above approach is backwards compatibility.
> Existing interrupt specifiers (and device trees) are valid with
> this proposal.

Actually they're not, like BenH pointed out.


Segher